9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of the Revenue is: "Whether the Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in holding that the advance (rental) received by the assessee from the company in which he is a shareholder cannot be termed as a deemed dividend for the purpose of section 2(22)(e)?" The assessee is an individual and he is the managing director of Tip Top Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has substant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the assessee which would be adjusted towards rent for the premises. After the completion of the construction of the other floors a further lease deed was entered into on May 3, 1984, by which the second, third and fourth floors of the building were rented out to the company on a monthly rental of Rs. 10,400. While making the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imately repaid or adjusted, but that will not alter the fact that the assessee, in the eye of law, had received dividend from the company during the relevant accounting period." The fact that advance paid to the assessee was to be set off against the future rents would therefore not alter the fact that the assessee in the eye of law had received dividend from the company during the relevant accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was to be adjusted against the rent payable for the other three floors. The amount of rent payable for those floors was also set out in the further lease. The advance therefore was required to be set off against the rents payable in future years and thus adjusted. The amount of Rs. 10 lakhs paid was clearly as advance, though it was an advance which was to be set off against the rents payable in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
