DCIT, BANGALORE vs. G-7 SYNERGON PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 980/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 February 2017AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the substantive assessment of the deemed dividend in the hands of Shri M. N. Jahanath was confirmed by a coordinate bench, the revenue's appeals against the protective additions in the assessee's hands became infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made on a protective basis for deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The Assessing Officer had made these additions in the assessee's hands, while substantive assessment was done in the hands of Shri M. N. Jahanath.

What were the issues?

Whether protective additions for deemed dividend in the assessee's hands are sustainable when substantive additions in another person's hands have been confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Appellant: Shri. H. V. Gowthama, CA
For Respondent: Shri. A. R. V. Srinivasan, JCIT, Shri. H. V. Gowthama, CA
Hearing: 09.02.2017Pronounced: 15.02.2017

These two appeals by the revenue are directed against the composite order dated 12.01.2015 of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The only common issue raised by the revenue in these appeals is regarding the addition made by the AO on protective basis on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.

2.

We have heard the learned AR as well as learned DR and considered the relevant material on record. The AO while completing the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A has made protective assessment in the hand of the assessee for these two assessment years in respect of dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act as substantive assessment of the same income was made in the hand of Shri. M. N. Jahanath. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the AO on the ground that the substantive assessment has been confirmed in the hand of Shri. M. N. Jahanath for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2011-12. The coordinate bench of this Tribunal has confirmed the addition made by the AO on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) in the hand of Shri. M. N. Jahanath for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-2011 vide order dated 07.10.2016 in to 1652/Bang/2014. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, when this Tribunal has upheld the assessment of deemed dividend in the hand of Shri. M. N. Jahanath, the appeals filed by the revenue becomes infructuous. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A).

3.

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →