9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GH COURT ] wherein it has been held that business transaction is not covered u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Various other case laws cited by the assessee has also been made this issue debatable. The case relied on by the AO i.e Mak Data P. Ltd. [ 2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT ] is not applicable as assessee at every stage had filed the explanation before the AO as well as CIT(A) i.e. these transactions were made for the purpose of business and commercial expediency is bonafide. Penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are not justified. Accordingly we delete the penalty in all the cases. Undisputedly the facts pattern in the impugned matters are similar to the facts before Co-ordinate Bench in respect of assessee s group compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in itself justifies the bonafideness of the appellant and hence, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that inter corporate funds transfer is noting but devise to evade tax is absolutely incorrect. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Real Estate Development and is part of the Udaikant Mishra Group, which were searched on 03.05.2007. Subsequent to search, assessments u/s 153A/143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 were completed. During these years the assessee raised loan from its sister concerns , Abhishek Estate (P) Ltd and Abhishek Finlease (P) Ltd. These loans received were offered for tax as Deemed Dividend during the course of assessment proceedings and were accordingly taxed and no appeals we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /JP/2011 468/JP/2011 2002-03 2003-04` 2004-05 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Geeta Mishra 667/JP/2011 2007-08 Abhishek Estate (p) Ltd. 668/JP/2011 2005-06 Trimurty Farms Retreats vs. DCIT 666/JP/2011 2005-06 Further the ld. AR submitted that the advances have not been disputed to be business advances. Business advances do not attract provision of section 2(22)(e) is supported by various judicial pronouncements. Thus it is a possible vies and a debatable one. Where two views are possible, no penalty can be imposed. The tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egular business. It is a running account, said advances later on repaid. This issue is debatable and various courts particularly in the case of Creative Dyeing Printing (P) Ltd. (Supra) wherein it has been held that business transaction is not covered u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Various other case laws cited by the assessee has also been made this issue debatable. The case relied on by the AO i.e Mak Data P. Ltd. is not applicable as assessee at every stage had filed the explanation before the AO as well as CIT(A) i.e. these transactions were made for the purpose of business and commercial expediency is bonafide. Penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are not justified. Accordingly we delete the penalty in all the cases. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
