9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction with Schutz Dishman Bio-Tech Private Limited is concerned. We re-frame the question no.1 as - Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 16,03,933=00 made on account of the deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2005-06 in so far as the transaction with B.R. Laboratories Private Limited is concerned ? - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 193 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2019 - MR J. B. PARDIWALA AND MR A. C. RAO, JJ. For The Appellant (s) : MRS MAUNA M BHATT For The Opponent (s) : MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved to be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Similarly, according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee herein had received loan from B.R. Laboratories Private Limited amounting to ₹ 16,03,933=00. Both these loans were treated by the Assessing Officer as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee herein and addition of ₹ 2,41,03,933=00 was made under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the re-assessment order. 6. The assessee herein carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee came to be allowed by the CIT(A). Being dissatisfied, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant. I am of the view that the provisions of S.2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable at all and therefore the question of deduction of tax at source does not arise and therefore, the liability u/s.201(1) and 201(A) of the Act also does not arise. For both the years under consideration, I have perused the copies of the ledger accounts placed on record. It can be seen that there are large number of debit and credit transactions. Meaning thereby, the appellant has given and received funds as and when required to and from its associate concern. It is not an account whereby loans and advances have been given to the associate concern. It is an account which is in the nature of current adjustment accommodation account wherein there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is nothing but Inter Corporate Deposits (ICD) which in any case would be outside the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This view supported by the following direct binding decisions of the ITATs. M/s. Utkarsh Fincap(P) Ltd., v ITO 1288 ITR 38 On.(Tri. Ahmedabad) M/s. Bombay Oil Industries Ltd, v. DCIT, Central Circle-35 Mumbai 128 SOT 383 (Mum.) 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 curr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oratories Private Limited. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this Appeal so far as the transaction with Schutz Dishman Bio-Tech Private Limited is concerned. 10. In the circumstances referred to above, we re-frame the question no.1 as under : Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 16,03,933=00 made on account of the deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2005-06 in so far as the transaction with B.R. Laboratories Private Limited is concerned ? 11. This Tax Appeal is admitted on the aforesaid re-framed substantial question of law. 12. In view of the re-framed questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
