TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. IT(ss)ANo.50/CTK/2013: A.Y. 2009-1-- Assessee's appeal IT(ss)ANo.72/CTK/2013: A.Y. 2009-10 - Revenue's appeal 6. These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue against the order dated 20.3.2013 of the ld CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar in Appeal No.0340/10-11 for the assessment year 2009-10. 7. In assessee's appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of the ld CIT(A) in estimating the income of the assessee at 10% of the administrative expenses and export expenses. 8. At the time of hearing, ld AR submitted that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of this Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Aliza International Pvt Ltd in IT(ss)A Nos.51 & 52/CTK/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10 order dated 13.10.2022, wherein, this Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in paras 15 & 16 held as follows: " 15. In reply, ld. AR vehemently supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the disallowance made itself is very high and it should be reduced in line with the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Serajuddin & Co. in IT(SS)A Nos.30&31/CTK/2013, order dated 10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ld CIT(A) erred in reducing the disallowance to 10%. He vehemently supported the order of the Assessing officer. 16. In reply, ld AR drew our attention to page 13 of the order of the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) had reduced the disallowance of the administrative and other expenses and export expenses to 10%. It was the submission that in assessee's appeal in IT(ss) A No.50/CTK/2013, the Tribunal has already reduced this disallowance to 5%. It was submitted that consequently, the order of the ld CIT(A) is liable to be modified to reduce the disallowance to 5%. 17. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that this issue has already been considered in IT(ss) A No.50/CTK/2013 and we have reduced the said disallowance made from 10% to 5%, Ground No.3 of the revenue stands dismissed. 18. In Ground Nos.4 & 5, the revenue has challenged the direction of the ld CIT(A) in adopting the total income at Rs.1,54,98,904/- before depreciation. 19. Ld CIT DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made an assessment of Rs.15,39,73,507/-, which had been reduced by the ld CIT(A) to Rs.1,54,98,904/-. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) ough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oan and that HUF is liable to be assessed in respect of the dividend income. 23. Ld AR submitted that the decision in the case of Gopal and Sons (HUF) (supra) in para 7 clearly showed that the Gopal & Sons (HUF) was the shareholder in the company and it was only because the said Gopal & Sons (HUF) was the shareholder, the deemed dividend was added. It was the submission that in the impugned case, the assessee is not the shareholder in M/s. Aliza International Pvt Ltd. It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 24. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) clearly shows that the word used is "on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder". Thus, the deemed dividend, if at all, can be assessed is to be assessed in the hands of the shareholder on whose behalf or individual benefit, the loan has been given. In the present case, the assessee is not the shareholder of M/s. Aliza International Pvt Ltd., which would attract the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the findings of the ld CIT(A) is on right footing and does not cal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the business of mining, therefore, the said expenditure cannot be said to be peripheral development expenditure. In such circumstances, we are left with only issue as to whether the said expenditure was business expenditure or not. The evidence produced by the assessee clearly shows that the expenditure has been incurred at the direction from BMC. The payments have been made by cheque to the contractor sponsored by the BMC. Obviously, the beautification work had been done at the direction of the BMC and a Board is required to put up specifying that the work has been done by a particular individual or company. This is also in the form of advertisement. Here, as it is noticed that the expenditure has been incurred at the instruction of the BMC, we are of the view that it cannot be said the payment has been made for extraneous consideration. This being so, we are of the view that the expenditure is incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee and same is allowable." Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Aliza International Pvt Ltd. (supra), the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) in respect of peripheral develo....