ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Mazda Concrete Products (P) Ltd, Hyderabad
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed
ITA 118/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Mar 2018AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.118/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Acit,Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Mazda Concrete Bhubaneswar Products (P) Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Grand, Rajbhawan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabcm 9883 H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Citdr निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.Satyanarayana Murty, Fca Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Ii, Bhubaneswar Dated 12.02.2014. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,50,24,517/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Suppression Of Closing Stock. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 17,34,99120/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S.2(22)(E) Of-The Act. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law-As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.57,75,425/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Interest Paid U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 15,59,634/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Rent Paid U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.
For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana Murty, FCA ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40A(7)
…. Act, a registered share holder of a company alone can be taxed while receiving an amount by way of loan or advance and no other entity can be taxed. The appellant particularly brought our attention to the ratio of the case of CIT vs Ankitech (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Delhi High Court) which has dealt with the identical issue as involved in the case of the appellant. The appellant had cited the decision where the Hon'ble High Court had decided in the above case along with a group of similar cases. At .the cost of repetition, I would like to discuss the relevant facts of the case. The assessee company had recei…
