2014 (4) TMI 825

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng that Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act is not attracted?" 2. The assessee is the proprietor of Shri Vekkaliamman Builders and Promoters and he also happens to be the Managing Director of Southern Academy of Maritime Studies Private Limited, in which he holds share of 63%. The Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.87,57,297/- to the assessee's income under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as deemed dividend from Southern Academy of Maritime Studies Private Limited, rejecting the assessee's contention that the company awarded construction contract to the assessee's proprietary concern after completing with the procedures of the companies Act. The assessee stated that it being a normal business transaction, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ambassador Travels P.Ltd.] and (09) 181 Taxmann 155, [CIT vs. Vikramjit Sen and Rajiv Shakdher] the Commissioner viewed that the trade advance was in the nature of money given for the specific purpose of constructing the building for the private limited company and hence the payment could not be treated as deemed dividend falling within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the Commissioner allowed the assessee's appeal. 4. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue went on appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the view of the Commissioner. The Tribunal pointed out that the reliance placed on by the Revenue on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 229 ITR 444 (cited supra) and the Bomb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Southern Academy of Maritime Studies Private Limited paid a sum of Rs.1,20,23,396/- to the assessee by cheque on various dates and such receipts were not related to any business dealings and were only in the nature of receipt of loans or advances merited to be re-considered by this Court. 6. We do not agree with the said submission primarily for the reason that the amount referred to as received from M/s.Vista Securities Technics Pvt.Ltd., is stated to be to the tune of Rs.1,90,00,000/-, whereas the amount treated as deemed dividend in the order of assessment was to the tune of Rs.87,57,297/-. Apart from that, the ground taken before us also states that the private limited company had paid a sum of Rs.1,20,23,396/-. This has no correl....