Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2012 (8) TMI 484

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee is a Managing Director of M/s. Ravindra Services (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as RSPL) having substantial ownership of shareholding and 10% of voting power. The assessee had taken a loan of Rs. 17,65,517/- from RSPL which was subsequently repaid by the assessee. The Assessing Officer treated the said amount as deemed divided and made addition under the head "other sources" invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e)of the Act. Apart from the above, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,62,035 towards the rent received from RSPL under the head 'Income from House Property'. Further, an addition of Rs. 1,20,718/- w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... iii) CIT Vs. Rajkumar, 318 ITR 462(Del) The D.R. submitted that case of the assessee is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarada P. Vs. CIT., 229 ITR 444(SC) as well as Smt. Tarulata Shyam Vs. CIT reported as 108 ITR 345(SC). He further relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.K.Abubucker reported as 259 ITR 507(Mad). 5. On the other hand, Dr. Anita Sumanth, counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the order passed by the CIT(A) is a well reasoned and detailed order. She submitted that the amount was advanced to the assessee as per her pre-condition of granting bank guarantee and a collateral security for funding of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....judgements referred to by the respective parties. The provisions of section 2(22)(e) are reproduced herein below:- "2(22)(e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) [made after the 31st day of May, 1987, by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a right to participate in profits) holding not less than ten per cent of the voting power, or to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest (hereafter in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....distribution of shares pursuant to a demerger by the resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged company (whether or not there is a reduction of capital in the demerged company)." The definition laid down by section 2(22) is inclusive and not exhaustive. The following payments of distributions by a company to its shareholder are deemed as dividends to the extent of accumulated profits of the company although these payments may not be dividends under the provisions of Companies Act:- (a) any distribution or release of company's assets; (b) any distribution of debentures, debenture stock, deposit certificates and bonus to preference share- holders; (c) distribution on liquidation of company; (d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Division Bench judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra (supra), wherein the facts were similar to the facts of the instant case. In Pradip Kumar's case assessee had substantial holding in in a private company. The assessee permitted his immovable property to be mortgaged to the bank for enabling the company to take the benefit of loan. The Board of Directors of the company passed a resolution to obtain interest free deposit upto Rs. 50 lakhs as and when required. The assessee obtained from the company a sum of Rs. 20,75,000/- by way of security deposit. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was returned by the assessee to the company. The Assessing Officer added the sum of Rs. 20,75,000/- as de....