2007 (9) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs. 2,08,814 was taxable in the hands of the appellant as 'Deemed Dividend' within the meaning of section 2(22)( e) of the Income-tax Act. 1.2 The appellant submits that facts stated by the appellant and law as explained by the appellant was not correctly interpreted. The provisions of section 2(22)(e ) have been wrongly construed and erroneously invoked. 2. The authorities below were not justified in taxing the unquantified claim of sales tax refund of Rs. 23,744 as income of the appellant during the year under review, particularly when refund was quantified at Rs. 18,595 on 8-7-2002." 3. At the time of hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee does not wish to press ground No. 2. In view of the same,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f of any such shareholder or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits" mentioned in section 2(22)( e). He, therefore, applied the provisions of section 2(22)( e) and directed the Assessing Officer to include the said sum of Rs. 2,08,814 to the total income of the assessee. Complying with the said directions, Assessing Officer made the addition to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is in second appeal before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that M/s. HDPPL had carried out certain job work transactions for th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submissions, the undisputed facts are that the assessee is a director holding beneficial shares of M/s. HDPPL entailing voting powers exceeding 10 per cent. The outstanding amount is on account of the job work transactions carried out by M/s. HDPPL for the proprietary concern of the assessee, viz., M/s. Priyadarshini Prints. The revenue authorities have applied the provisions of section 2(22)( e) on the ground that the assessee is holding the beneficial shares of M/s. HDPPL and that he has derived an indirect benefit from the said transaction. It is not the case of the revenue that M/s. HDPPL has not carried out any job work for the assessee or his proprietary concern. There is also no finding by the revenue authorities that the assessee h....