9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- As similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2010-11. A detailed discussion has been made in the order for such year and eventually the matter has been restored to the file of AO for a fresh a decision. Admittedly, the facts and circumstances of the ground for the instant year are similar to those of the preceding year. Respectfully following the precedent, we set-aside the impugned order on this score and remit the matter to the file of AO for deciding this issue in conformity with the directions given by the Tribunal in its order for the preceding year. Disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT:- As AR submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rking out the excessive payments and conveniently ignored other transactions in which the assessee made purchases at lower than such standard rates at the close of the day. As against excess paid calculated by the AO at ₹ 11.21 crore, the assessee submitted that in the same way, the AO's calculation depicted lower payments at ₹ 31.14 crore. It was thus urged that no addition could have been made as the assessee, in fact, made lower payments for purchase of Gold, Bullion and Gold ornaments by ₹ 19.92. crore on overall basis. The ld. CIT(A) got convinced with the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee. He thus deleted the addition u/s.40A(2) of the Act. He, however, noted that the assessee's transaction with its sist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstant ground are mutatis mutandis similar to those of the immediately preceding year, respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the action of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the provisions of section 40A(2) were not attracted and it is further held that the gross profit rate of 0.63% (0.54% as declared by the assessee plus addition of 0.09%) be applied. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed and those of the assessee are partly allowed. 5. The next issue taken up by the assessee in its appeal is against confirmation of addition amounting to ₹ 2,07,84,694/- u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. 6. The facts apropos this issue are that the AO found the assessee to have received loans from M/s. Manraj Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
