9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additions observing that the conditions prescribed under Sec.2(22)(e) were not satisfied - 66 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 2-2-2009 - D. A. MEHTA and S. R. BRAHMBHATT, JJ. Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Saurabh N. Soparkar, Sr. advocate with Ms. Niti P. Sheth for Mrs. Swati Soparkar for Respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said provision requires establishment of either of the two facts : (i) the payment from the Company has to be by way of advance or loan, or (ii) the payment is made for and on behalf of or for benefit of the assessee, but in both the cases the payment by the Company has to be from the accumulated profits. That in the instant case the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. 5. On plain reading of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, it becomes apparent that the provision defines 'dividend' and the definition is inclusive one. Vide clause (e), any payment by the Company of the nature stipulated in the provision, either by way of advance or loan to a share holder, or any payment by any such company on behalf or for individual benefit of any such share holder, can be de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irement of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act though Tribunal has categorically held that respondent assessee did not have such a share holding. 7. In the facts of the case, the record reveals that Tribunal has found as a matter of fact that there is no finding that payment was made out of accumulated profits or that the company possessed accumulated profits. Therefore, on this count the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
