9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n held that as looking to large number of adjustment entries in the accounts between two entities, the amounts were not in the nature of loan or deposit, but merely adjustments, application of section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not arise. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the issue is covered by the decision of the First Appellate Authority. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2003-04 reads as under:- "It is not in dispute that appellant had lot of business transactions with M/s Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd. There were transactions of purchase of raw material as well as temporary accommodation deposits. Assessing officer of M/s Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd initiated action under section 201 (1) by treating the transaction with appellant company as deemed dividend and the said company was treated as assessee in default for not deducting TDS in assessment year 2004- 05 and 2005-06. In both the years, CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad by order dated 28- 09-2010 held that transactions entered into by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s between appellant and its associate concern M/s Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd was there since assessment year 2004-05 onwards and during the year the debit balance in the appellant's account was substantially reduced. Since CIT (A) did not find the transactions between appellant and its associate concern as loans and advances given, logically the same cannot be loans and advances received by the appellant. It is not in dispute that in the books of the associate concern, there are five accounts relating to various transactions in the name of appellant and six accounts in the name of associate concern in the books of appellant. In these many accounts where a large number of debit and credit entries involving different business transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:- 4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis. The transactions in the nature of loans and advances are usually very few in number whereas in the present case, such transactions are in the form of current accommodation adjustment entries. The Commissioner therefore, held that the transactions were not in the nature of loans and advances. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal. The Tribunal concurred with the view of the CIT (Appeals) and held that the amounts were not in the nature of Inter Corporate Deposits and were therefore, not to be treated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
