9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stand taken by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded that such sum was received by the petitioner from the company by way of a loan, is thus even otherwise not correct. We have therefore proceeded on such basis. If that be so, the reason for reopening the assessment completely lacked validity. The sole ground to reopen the assessment was that the loan received by the petitioner from private company should be treated as a deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e). When on facts the petitioner is able to show that the amount in question was advanced by the petitioner to the company and was not received by the company by way of a loan, section 2(22)(e) would have no applicability. The impugned notice is set aside. Petition is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company M/s Rushil Decor Ltd. got listed as a public ltd company by way of IPO during the F.Y. 2011-12 and it was a Pvt. Ltd. company during the F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee being a substantial shareholder having more than 10% shareholding in a closely held company had received payments by way of loans from the company, these loan transactions between the assessee and company fall within the definition of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per the provisions section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the amount of ₹ 3,21,52,933/received as loans by the assessee from M/s Rushil Decor Ltd. was to be treated as dividend in the hands of the assessee and should have been included in the total taxable inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n came to be filed. 3. We may notice that the return filed by the petitioner was accepted under section 143(1) of the Act without scrutiny. In that view of the matter, the grounds for challenging the notice for reopening, would undoubtedly be limited. However, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer lack validity since the Assessing Officer proceeds on completely wrong factual parameter. He pointed out that the Assessing Officer wishes to invoke section 2(22)(e) of the Act with respect to a certain sum of ₹ 3.21 crores (rounded off) allegedly received by the assessee from M/s.Rushil Decors Limited by way of a loan. In the objections raised by the petitioner as well as in the present p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
