DR. L.S. RAVI PRAKASH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), BANGALORE

ITA 30/BANG/2021Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 October 2022AY 2011-1221 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that accumulated profits should be considered only up to the previous year (31.03.2010) and that only loans/advances received during the current assessment year should be considered for deemed dividend, excluding opening balances from earlier years. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-computation.

What were the facts?

The assessee received advances from companies where he was a director and shareholder, purportedly for the sale of agricultural land. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these advances as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether advances received for sale of property can be treated as deemed dividend, and how accumulated profits and opening balances should be considered in the computation of deemed dividend.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(11)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri G. Sathyanarayana, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Hearing: 14.09.2022Pronounced: 28.10.2022

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-2, Bangalore dated 20.11.2019 for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The order of the learned CIT(A) in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity and weight of evidence, natural justice, facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

The appellant denies himself to be liable to be assessed to total income of Rs.8,35,37,741/-- as against the total income returned of Rs.38,75,550/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The learned CIT(A) faile

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →