9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i-II vs. Madhur Housing and Development Company [2017 (10) TMI 1279 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. The deletion made on account of deemed dividend cannot be faulted with. Addition of expenditure towards Keyman Insurance policy premium of the assessee Director, is an allowable expenses in view of the Circular by the CBDT No.38/2016, dated 22/11/2016. As we are not commended to any cogent material as would nullify the effect of the said circular no interference is caused in respect of said finding of facts and law. We are of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration as would warrant any indulgence. - I.T.A.No.76/2018 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2019 - Sanjay Yadav And Vivek Agarwal JJ. For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Assurance Policy and amount of ₹ 9,50,150/- was towards premium, the Assessing Officer by order dated 29/03/2014 added ₹ 1,16,72,608/- on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of 1961 Act and ₹ 9,50,150/- by disallowing the contribution made towards the policy treating it to be investment. Commissioner, Income Tax in Appeal reversed the order, holding that the dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of 1961 Act can be taxed only in hands of share holder; whereas, the assessee is neither beneficiary nor the registered share holder. As regard to adding of ₹ 9,50,150/-, the Commissioner(Appeal) found that the same is not chargeable in view of Circular by CBDT No.38/2016, dated 22/11/2016. In an appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Keyman insurance policy, by holding that the policy documents was fully explanatory as keyman policy even when the assessee during the assessment proceedings failed to establish that the insurance policy taken was keyman insurance policy and not as endowment policy? After hearing learned counsel for the appellant at length, we are not persuade to cause an indulgence. As regard to the issue as to whether an assessee who is neither a registered nor beneficial share holder in relative concerns would be governed by Section 2(22) (e) of 1961 Act, is no more res integra and is settled at rest by Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.462 of 2009 decided on 11.5.2011 which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
