9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 2003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Construction [ 2015 (2) TMI 898 - ITAT MUMBAI ] finding the same to be purely commercial transactions. The stand of FAA has been confirmed by the Tribunal vide cited order. Therefore, since a view has already been taken, we find no reason to take a different view, the factual matrix being identical. Another reason to concur with the stand of the assessee is that the assessee herself has not received any amount from the Company rather the amount has been received by the firm, in which the assessee was a partner to the extent of 23%. Therefore, the basic condition of Section 2(22)(e) i.e. the assessee has received the amount from the concern, is missing in the case. Decided in favour of assessee. - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P) Ltd to the M/s Pathik Construction is not in the ordinary course of business of the company because lending was not at all the business of M/s. Kalpana struct. Con (P) Ltd.? 2.2 Briefly stated, the assessee being resident individual engaged as real estate broker was assessed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 on 28/03/2014 at Rs. 104.84 Lacs after sole addition of Rs. 100.43 Lacs u/s 2(22)(e) as against final assessed income of Rs. 4.40 Lacs u/s 143(3). The addition made u/s 2(22)(e) is the sole subject matter of this appeal. 2.3 During assessment proceedings it was noted that the assessee was holding more than 10% shareholding in an entity namely Kalpana Struc. Con Pvt. Ltd. [in short Company ] and was also having 23% share in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Ms.Pooja Swaroop submitted that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e), being deeming fiction, were applicable to the facts of the case notwithstanding the fact that the transactions were business transactions in nature. The Ld. Auhtorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Ms. Hiral Sejpal submitted that the matter stand squarely covered in assessee s favor by the order of the Tribunal in the case of the firm, a copy of which has been placed on record. 5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record including the cited decision of the Tribunal in the case of the firm Pathik Construction. We find that similar ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that tax effect of the quantum additions as contested by the revenue is less than prescribed limit of Rs.20 Lacs and the same is covered by recently issued low tax effect Circular No.03/2018 dated 11/07/2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT]. The Ld. DR, Ms. Pooja Swaroop, has controverted the same by submitting that necessary instructions / certificate, in this regard, would be required from higher authorities. 8. We have gone through the circular and find that the tax effect of quantum in dispute is below prescribed limit of Rs.20 Lacs and the assessee stood benefitted by the above circular issued by CBDT wherein the minimum monetary limit for filing the appeals before various appellate authorities have been fixed as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
