9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties Pvt. Ltd. from Monachem Additives Pvt. Ltd., treating as Deemed Dividend u/s. 2(22)9e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in hands of Shareholder i.e. Appellant . On the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition so confirmed of Rs.16,00,000/- is incorrect and illegal both on facts and law, and same be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the amount of addition for Rs.16,00,000/- instead of Rs.1,96,800/- i.e. up to his shareholding percentage in Monachem Additives Pvt Ltd (12.3% of Rs.16,00,000/-). It is submitted that such addition so confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), prayed to be deleted. 3. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50% during the F.Y. 20111- 12. The assessee was in receipt of reason for reopening vide Notice dated 23.05.2019 with regard to payment received M/s. Addpol Chemspecialities Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 16,00,000/- from Monachem Additives Pvt. Ltd. having the assessee as a common shareholder having a share in M/s. Monachem Additives Pvt. Ltd. at 12.3% and 50% in M/s. Addpol Chemspecialities Pvt. Ltd. to treat it as deemed dividend in the hands of shareholder i.e. assessee. The assessee explained that this transfer of fund are from and to the sister concern on need basis for a few days and also the amount was not kept for a fix period or repayable on demand. The assessee has given the extracts of the account thereby pointing out these aspects. Further t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant i.e. lender company i.e. 12.3% of Rs. 16,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 1,96,800/-. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has received two showcause notices for addition of Rs. 1,96,800/-. However, after the change in incumbent the assessee received third show-cause notice wherein addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- was proposed and asked the assessee to reply the same. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the Hon'ble Madras High Court 120 taxmann.com 125 (Madras) and decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT vs. Sunjewels International Ltd. (2020) 116 taxmann.com 160 (Bombay HC). Therefore, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the said addition may be deleted. 6. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the subscription and beneficial in respect of deemed dividend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
