2016 (12) TMI 945

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have received an amount of Rs. 13,17,690/- in the case of K. Narasimha Rao, Rs. 6,39,220/- by Smt. K. Geetha and these amounts are considered as deemed dividends by the Assessing Officer (AO). The addition was made proportionately at 73:27 ratio of the accumulated profits of the said company. Assessees have questioned both addition u/s. 2(22)(e) and quantum of the amount added and matters have come up to ITAT. The Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 528/Hyd/2007 & 529/Hyd/2007 dt. 08-01-2010 has set aside the issue to the file of the AO directing as under: "7. We have considered rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. No doubt the assessees admitted accumulated profit at the end of the relevant previo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the submission of assessee before the AO that the accumulated profits as per the Balance Sheet as on 31-03-2002 were shown at Rs. 3,26,333/- and after making adjustments for the depreciation, accumulated profit for the year works out to Rs. 1,72,362/- only [para 2.8 of the assessment order]. In arriving at that amount, assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M.V. Murugappan [62 ITR 382, 388] (Mad) and also the Co-ordinate Bench decision of Bangalore in the case of Bagamane Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd., in ITA Nos. 442 to 444/Bang/2010 dt. 04-11- 2010. AO, however, rejected these contentions and arrived at the accumulated profits at Rs. 7,92,990/- as originally determined and added the amount of R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....B.S. Purushotham Vs. ITO [26 ITD 520]; ii. ACIT Vs. Yasin Hotels (P) Ltd., [30 SOT 47 (Chennai) (URO)]; iii. Yogesh Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 1001 to 1007/PN/2011); 5. Ld. DR however, submitted that assessee has not co-operated with the AO or CIT(A), hence, the addition made should be confirmed. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the documents placed on record. There is no dispute to the application of provisions u/s. 2(22)(e) are concerned. The same was already accepted in the earlier appeal proceedings. The issue was restored to AO for determination of the 'accumulated profits' (as extracted above). The Co-ordinate Bench has already directed the AO to verify the 'accumulated profits' on the dat....