9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , they are disposed off by a common order. 2. The above mentioned appeals emanate from the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Hyderabad against the orders u/s 201(1) and 201(lA) of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer held that the amount paid by Jayadarsini Housing Pvt. Ltd., to the following persons represent the income within the meaning of Sec.2(22)( e) of the I.T. Act. 1) Sri Gorla Sai Babu, Managing Director 2) Smt. Gorla Sailaja, Director 3) Jayadarshini Properties Pvt. Ltd., 3. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee while paying the amounts had to deduct the tax at source but did not do so and, therefore, charged the tax u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(lA) of the I.T. Act. The amounts pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the details of which are mentioned above. 6. ITA.No. 1360 to 1363/Hyd/2011 - A.Ys. 2005-06 to 20082009 (Assessee's Appeals) : With respect to these appeals, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer taxed the receipt from the company as income of Sri G. Sai Babu and Smt. G. Sailaja assessable under section 2(22)(e) while completing their individual assessments. The said two persons are the directors of the assessee company and they filed appeals before the learned CIT (Appeals). The learned CIT (Appeals) observed that the transactions are in the nature of business transactions and cannot be considered as deemed dividend under Sec.2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. The department filed appeals and the Hon'ble ITAT vide order dated 31.7.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessee, submitted as follows : 1) Decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. reported in 118 ITD 1 wherein it is held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) will not apply if the person receiving the amount is not a registered shareholder of the company. 2) The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. MCC Marketeing Pvt. Ltd., reported in 343 ITR 350 wherein it is held that the deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) be assessable only in the hands of the shareholder of the company from whom it had received a loan or advance and where the recipient of the loan or advance is not a shareholder no addition could be made u/sec. 2(22)(e). 10. We find that the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
