RAJU THAKURDAS JAISINGHANI,ULHASNAGAR vs. DCIT CIR 2, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3152/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 2016AY 2011-123 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Rs. 11,60,000/- was received as director's remuneration and Rs. 9,50,000/- was paid from funds deposited by the assessee. Since the total of these amounts (Rs. 21,10,000/-) exceeded the payment received by the assessee (Rs. 20,00,000/-), the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not attracted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a shareholder in M/s Dheeraj Estates Pvt. Ltd., received Rs. 20,00,000/- from the company. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of this amount under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, treating it as a deemed dividend.

What were the issues?

Whether the amount withdrawn by a shareholder from a company in which he holds shares constitutes a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) when it represents remuneration and repayment of funds deposited by the shareholder.

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, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA

Hearing: 14/07/2016Pronounced: 27/07/2016

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘एस.एम.सी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आमकय अऩीर सं./ (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Mr. Raju Thakurdas Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Kalyan(W)- Jaisinghani, 202, 2nd Floor, 421301 Ratan Deep Apartment, Sapna, Garden Road, Section-17, Ulhasnagar-3, District Thane स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AGOPJ 7036 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sudhir V. Hunnargirkar याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Neil Philip सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 14/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date of Pronouncement 27/07/2016 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2011-2012.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for addition made u/s.2(22)(e) of the I.T.Act.

3.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of transport hiring services under the name and style M/s Raju Roadlines. The assessee is also a partner in various firms, from where he had received share of profit, interest on capital and remuneration. Besides above income, he had salary income from M/s Dheeraj Estates Pvt. Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee

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 →