Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2016
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA ITA NO.311/2015
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 (1), NO. 59, HMT BHAVAN, 6TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. ... APPELLANTS (By SRI. DILIP, ADV., FOR SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADV.)
AND:
M/S. NAMDHARI SEEDS, ‘SRI SAI ARCADE’, NO.8, 12TH CROSS, 1ST PHASE, IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP,
2 RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 098. ... RESPONDENT
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20/02/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1746/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT 2003- 2004.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The appellants/Revenue have preferred the present appeal by raising following substantial question of law:-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the addition made under section 2(22)(e) of the Act on the amount paid to the assessee firm by the company M/s. NSPL, could not be assessed as ‘deemed dividend’ in the hands of the assessee-firm even when all the ingredients of the said provision are satisfied in the case
3 of assessee and Section 2(22)(e) of the Act brings to tax as deemed dividend certain payments made by a company by way of advance or loan to a shareholder or payment to a concern in which the shareholder is a member or partner and in which he has substantial interest, without appreciating that in the present case, the partner, Shri Thakur Uday Singh of the firm M/s. Namdhaari Seeds (50% share of profit), is also a shareholder in M/s. Namdhaari Seeds Pvt. Ltd., (64% stake)?”
We have heard Sri. Dilip, learned counsel appearing for Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel for the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants/Revenue fairly conceded that the matter is already covered by the decision of this Court dated 08.01.210s4 in ITA No.322/2012 and allied matters whereby the questions
4 formulated were answered in favour of assessee against the Revenue.
In view of the above declaration, we find that when the matter is already covered by the decision of this Court, the present appeal shall also stand disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE
SD/- JUDGE
PMR/-