TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal validates assessment reopening; deems transactions as business dealings, not deemed dividends.</h1> <h3>Smt. Uppala Rajani, Hyderabad Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 1 (1), Hyderabad</h3> Smt. Uppala Rajani, Hyderabad Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 1 (1), Hyderabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of reopening the assessment under Section 148.2. Addition made under Section 2(22)(e) on account of deemed dividend.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 148:The assessee contested the reopening of the assessment, arguing it was based on a change of opinion since the original assessment under Section 143(3) had already accepted the income declared. The assessee claimed that the business of M/s. Aster Industries existed and provided staff services to M/s. Aster Pvt. Ltd., and that the reopening was based solely on statements without corroborative evidence.However, the tribunal noted that the reopening was based on new information obtained during a survey under Section 133A, which revealed that M/s. Aster Industries did not provide any staff services to M/s. Aster Pvt. Ltd. The CEO of M/s. Aster Pvt. Ltd. admitted that M/s. Aster Industries was merely a name lender. This information was not available during the original assessment, thus the reopening was not considered a change of opinion but based on fresh material. The tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening, dismissing the preliminary issue raised by the assessee.2. Addition under Section 2(22)(e) on Account of Deemed Dividend:The assessee argued that the transactions between M/s. Aster Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Aster Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. were regular business transactions and not loans or advances, thus not attracting the provisions of Section 2(22)(e). The assessee provided detailed explanations and ledger accounts showing these transactions were for business purposes like supply of towers, antennas, and related services.The tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that the transactions were recorded in the books of accounts and involved regular business dealings. It was observed that similar transactions in earlier years did not attract additions under Section 2(22)(e). The tribunal concluded that the transactions were indeed business transactions and not loans or advances. The tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s conclusion that business transactions could still attract Section 2(22)(e) was contrary to judicial pronouncements, including those from the Delhi High Court, which held that trade advances for business transactions do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend.Thus, the tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 2(22)(e) by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A), allowing the grounds raised by the assessee.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, with the tribunal upholding the validity of the reopening of the assessment but deleting the addition made under Section 2(22)(e) on account of deemed dividend, recognizing the transactions as regular business dealings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
