9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment 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) of the Act. 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) of the Act would have no applicability. - Decided in favour of assessee. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12778 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2017 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. BIREN VAISHNAV, JJ. For The Petitioner : Ms Vaibhavi K Parikh, Advocate For The Respondent : Mrs Mauna M Bhatt, Advocate ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner has challenged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransactions 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 ₹ 4,17,65,430/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 income of the assessee. But this amount has escaped from being taxed. Return of income filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 on 15/10/2010 declaring income of ₹ 20,58,540/was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The case of the assessee is covered under the provisions of Explanation 2(b) of the section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lidity 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 ₹ 4.17 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 petition, it is stated and demonstrated that the loan was not received by the petitioner from the said company but the said sum was advanced by the petitioner to the company. That being the position, section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not apply. 4. The Assessing Officer has passed an order disposing of the objections. He has also filed affidavit in reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
