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 rules in favor of Assessee, deletes addition under section 2(22)(e) and disallowance under section 14A.</h1> <h3>Sh. Sukhwant Singh Versus The ACIT, Circle-2, Chandigarh.</h3> Sh. Sukhwant Singh Versus The ACIT, Circle-2, Chandigarh. - TMI Issues:1. Validity of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-22. Addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000 under section 2(22)(e) of the Act3. Addition of Rs. 11,82,978 under section 14AAnalysis:Issue 1: Validity of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2The Assessee challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, contending that it was not a speaking order, erroneous, arbitrary, and opposed to law and facts. The Tribunal noted the grounds raised by the Assessee and proceeded to evaluate the validity of the order.Issue 2: Addition under section 2(22)(e) of the ActThe Assessee received a loan of Rs. 1,40,00,000 from M/s Acme Builders Pvt. Ltd., in which the Assessee held more than 10% shares. The Assessing Officer treated this advance as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, as it was not in the normal course of business. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the money was not utilized for the purpose it was advanced. However, the Assessee argued that the advance was for acquiring a property in the name of the Assessee and was made for business expediency. The Tribunal, after examining the submissions and relevant documents, held that the advance was indeed a trade advance and utilized for business purposes. Relying on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.Issue 3: Disallowance under section 14AThe Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 11,82,978 under section 14A, which the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed. However, the Assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year. Citing a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Tribunal ruled that disallowance under section 14A can only be made to the extent of receipt of dividend income. Since the Assessee had not earned any exempt income, no disallowance was warranted. Consequently, the appeal of the Assessee was allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee, directing the deletion of the addition made under section 2(22)(e) and ruling out the disallowance under section 14A due to the absence of exempt income.
TaxTMI 