9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar No.19/2017, dated 12th June, 2017 we find that the matter needs further verification at the end of AO and accordingly, we remit the entire issue to the file of AO - Decided in favour of assessee allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 46/Ran/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2018 - Shri N.S. Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member Assessee by : Shri S.K.Poddar Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue by : Shri P.K.Mondal , JCIT ORDER Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Ranchi, dated 01.11.2016, for the assessment year 2012-2013, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale trading of Kerosene, Tyre, Tube and also provide excavator for the purpose of hiring and filed the return of income electronically for the assessment year 2012-2013 on 27.09.2012 with total income of ₹ 10,11,580/-. Accordingly the return of income was duly processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Subsequently, notice u/s.143(2) 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. In compliance, the AR of the assessee appeared and case was discussed. The AO on examination of books of accounts and other documents produced before the AO, held that the loan of ₹ 28,68,000/- from Khatore Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., where the assessee was a director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that M/s Khatore Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. had opening balance of ₹ 83,71,112/- as on 01.04.2011 with the assessee and the total reserve of the company was less than the amount of advance given. The fresh loan of ₹ 25,000/- and ₹ 3,68,000/- by account payee cheque was for the purposes of business. M/s Khatore Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. had earned profit of ₹ 15,376/- for financial year 2011-12, as such, advance of ₹ 28,68,000/- cannot be considered as deemed dividend. We have also perused the CBDT Circular No.19/2017, dated 12th June, 2017, placed by the ld. AR of the assessee before us, which reads as under :- Sub: Settled View on section 2(22We) of the Income Tax Act trade advances -reg. Section 2(22) cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. (C1T vs. Creative Dyeing Printing Pvt. Ltd.1, Delhi High Court). ii. Advance was made by a company to its shareholder to install plant and machinery at the shareholder s premises to enable him to do job work for the company so that the company could fulfil an export order. It was held that as the assessee proved business expediency, the advance was not covered by section 2(22)(e) of the Act. (C1T vs Amrik Singh, P H High Court). iii. A floating security deposit was given by a company to its sister concern against the use of electricity generators belonging to the sister concern. The company utilised gas available to it from GAIL to generate electricity and supplied it to the sister concern at concessional rates. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
