ITAT upholds CIT(A) decisions in tax case, dismissing department's appeal and assessee's cross-objection.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in a tax case. The ITAT confirmed the deletion of the addition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) as the assessee was not a shareholder in the lending companies. Additionally, the ITAT upheld the deletion of the addition under Section 40A(2)(b) as the interest rates paid were deemed reasonable. The ITAT also affirmed the treatment of late PF and ESIC payments as income under Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va). The department's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Deletion of addition under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Treatment of late payment to PF and ESIC as income under Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition of Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e):
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) despite the assessee having received the said dividend. The assessee argued that it is a public limited company and does not hold any shares in the companies from which it received loans. The loans were received from Cama Motors Pvt. Ltd. and R. J. Cama & Co. Pvt. Ltd. The assessee contended that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are not applicable as none of the shareholders holding more than 10% of the share capital of the lending companies hold 20% or more of the share capital of the assessee company. Additionally, the loans were in the ordinary course of business and thus excluded by virtue of sub-clause (ii) of Section 2(22)(e). The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee is not a shareholder in the lending companies, and therefore, Section 2(22)(e) cannot be applied.

2. Deletion of Addition under Section 40A(2)(b):
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 6,40,515/- made under Section 40A(2)(b) on the grounds that the interest paid by the assessee to related parties was above the prevailing market rate. The assessee paid interest at rates of 15% and 16%, while the Assessing Officer allowed only 12%, disallowing the excess. The ITAT noted that the loans were unsecured and the interest rates were commensurate with market rates for similar unsecured loans. The ITAT referred to a precedent where interest at 18% was allowed on unsecured loans and concluded that the assessee had not extended any undue benefit to related parties. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld.

3. Treatment of Late Payment to PF and ESIC as Income:
The Assessing Officer treated the late payment of Rs. 1,66,091/- towards PF and ESIC as income under Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va). The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, citing the judgment in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, which held that deductions under Section 36(1)(va) are allowed only if the employee's contributions are credited to the relevant fund on or before the due date. The ITAT affirmed this view, distinguishing between Section 36(1)(va) for employee contributions and Section 43B(b) for employer contributions. The ITAT concluded that the assessee is entitled to deductions only if the employee contributions are credited within the due date specified by the relevant statute. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The appeal by the department was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the assessee was also dismissed. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the deletion of deemed dividend and disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b), and affirmed the treatment of late PF and ESIC payments as income under Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va).

---