TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Appeal dismissed; deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) not attracted as assessee not shareholder of alleged companies</h1> HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The court upheld the Tribunal's factual finding that the assessee was not a shareholder of the two companies alleged to ... Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - money received by the Assessee is intercorporate deposits OR advance or loan within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- We are not in agreement with Appellant/Revenue because assuming without admitting as it is not conceded by the Assessee that intercorporate deposit could be brought in within this clause, yet, the Tribunal's findings of fact under challenge shows that the Assessee is not a shareholder of two companies namely M/s. Subhkam Stocks and Shares Ltd and M/s. Sweet Solutions Ltd. In such circumstances, of this Court in the case of Universal Medicare Private Limited [2010 (3) TMI 323 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] would apply. A detailed argument in relation to applicability of this judgment was canvassed before us by the Revenue in several Appeals [2014 (9) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. In fact, the Revenue's argument was that the judgment of the Division Bench in Universal Medicare (supra) requires reconsideration. For the detailed reasons that we have set out in our judgment, we do not find that the decision of the Division Bench requires reconsideration. Appeal dismissed. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenges the Tribunal's order relating to assessment year 2006-2007. Revenue contended that sums characterized by the Tribunal as 'inter-corporate deposits' are in truth advances or loans within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) and therefore 'the amount can be deemed as dividend' if other requirements are satisfied. The Bench accepted the Tribunal's factual finding that the assessee was not a shareholder of M/s. Subhkam Stocks and Shares Ltd and M/s. Sweet Solutions Ltd, and held the Division Bench decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (324 ITR 263 (Bom)) to be applicable. After considering detailed arguments, the Court found no reason to reconsider Universal Medicare. The Tribunal's findings of fact were held not to be 'perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of record.' The appeal was dismissed and 'There will be no order as to costs.'
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
