2012 (6) TMI 908

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s.2(22)(e) of the Act by treating amount received in normal course of business against remuneration/business expenses to be deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. 2. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 26/12/2008 were that the assessee in individual capacity was asked to explain the basis of loans and advances of Rs. 3,33,550/- form M/s. Foremost Finvest Pvt. Ltd. in the capacity of a Director and a Shareholder having substantial interest in the business affairs with the holding of 16.23% shares of the said company. It was explained that the said amount was received at different dates on account of advance to Director's remuneration traveling and other expenses. It has al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) Rs. 1,80,000     Net Debit Balance (A-B) Rs. 3,3,550 4. From the above details, it was observed that the assessee had received the impugned amount initially in the nature of advances which were later on taken place of nature of loans. It was opined by the ld.CIT(A) that the amount represented loan given by the Company. Assessee has further explained that the balance amount after the adjustment of Director's remuneration was to be returned to the assessee company. However, the Learned CIT(Appeals) was not convinced and following the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the transaction had represented the deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the I.T.Act. 5. On the date of hearing from the side of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anaging Directgor had received advance from the company, pursuant to resolution; so as to enable the assessee to purchase a land for development and construction of flats, therefore the said advance was held as motivated by business consideration and commercial expediency, hence not to be treated as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the I.T.Act. Reliance has also been placed on ITAT Chandigarh "A" Bench decision of DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers 106 TTJ (Chd.) 250. Further, in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Cal.) it was opined that the phrase "by way of advance or loan" appearing in sub-clause(e) of Clause(22) of section 2 be construed to mean those advances or loans which a shareholder enjoys for simply on account of being a....