9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te proceedings for the single transaction and the said proceedings have been dragged up to the level of this Court. Obviously, the department would have been well aware of the fact that the amount of ₹ 3.00 Crores advanced by the subsidiary to its holding company, cannot be taxed twice. When such being the position, we are really surprised to see that the initiation of two separate proceedings for the same transaction is not appreciable. Had the department have applied its mind in a proper manner, they could have avoided these type of vexatious proceedings and it would have saved the precious time of this Court as well as the department. No substantial question of law arising in this appeal. - TCA No.874 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Crores as loan from its subsidiary company during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2002-03. The said loan amount of ₹ 3.00 Crores have been shown in the balance sheet of the respondent company, relevant to the assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05. 6.According to the Department, the amount advanced by the subsidiary company to its holding company, namely a sum of ₹ 3.00 Crores is deemed dividend within the meaning of Section 2 (22)(e) of the Act. 7.On the other hand, the respondent contended that the amount received by it from the subsidiary company is only an advance towards security for providing corporate guarantee. Though it has received the advance towards security, it has paid interest of 1%, higher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )-III, Chennai (for brevity ( the CIT(A) ), dated 28.05.2008, as well as the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the entire dispute is purely factual. 5.The question is whether the amount of ₹ 4,16,12,082/- is to be construed as a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. We find that this issue was threadbare analysed by the CIT(A) in his order dated 28.05.2008, after calling for a remand report. This finding recorded by the CIT(A) was correct, as there is no payment made by the assessee-company to its subsidiary during the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 2004-05 within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 10.The present appeal is relating to the assessment year 2002-03, questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce received by the respondent from its subsidiary has been shown in the balance sheet of the respondent, relevant to the assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05. The department has initiated two separate proceedings for the single transaction and the said proceedings have been dragged up to the level of this Court. Obviously, the department would have been well aware of the fact that the amount of ₹ 3.00 Crores advanced by the subsidiary to its holding company, cannot be taxed twice. When such being the position, we are really surprised to see that the initiation of two separate proceedings for the same transaction is not appreciable. Had the department have applied its mind in a proper manner, they could have avoided these type of vexa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
