9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 1. "That the impugned order is bad in law as well as on merits. 2. That the impugned order and proceedings is without jurisdiction. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of documents and explanation filed, the liability for TDS of Rs. 1,01,489/- on deemed dividend u//s 2(22)(e) for Rs. 10,14,893/- and sustained by Ld.CIT(A) deserves to be deleted in law as well as on merits. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, no demand u/s 201 should have been created in view of demand created by the ITO, Ward-1(2), Gurgaon in case of Surbhi Jain. 5. That no interest 201(1A) should have been levied, without prejudice, the interest charged is excessive." 3. Briefly in the facts of the case the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y." 5. The case of the assessee before the authorities was that the aforesaid transaction was undertaken in order to raise bank loans and the assessee explained that "it had transferred the funds aggregating Rs. 50,00,000/- only to M/s. Arihant Agencies on 30.04.2010 and Rs. 20,00,000/- on 01.05.2010 which were received the same day in form of director's capital. Out of available funds of Rs. 89,65,100.16 only Rs. 70,00,000/- were outstanding in books of accounts. The difference amount of Rs. 19,65,100.16 was still lying in firm as director's capital and profits. therefore, no part of borrowed funds was diverted in making interest free advance." 6. We find that the issue of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in respect of similar tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion filed, the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,01,489/- for non-deduction of TDS on deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) for Rss.10,14,893/- and sustained by Ld.CIT(A) deserves to be deleted in law as well as on merits. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty should have been levied before treating the assessee as assessee in default in order passed u/s 201. 5. That without prejudice, penalty proceedings are without jurisdiction for not initiating the penalty proceedings in order passed u/s 201. 9. Further penalty was levied u/s 271C of the Act for the aforesaid default u/s 201(1) of the Act. Since we have already deleted the demand raised u/s 201(1) of the Act, there is no merit in levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
