SANJAY DIGAMBAR MALVE.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,
In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed
ITA 2755/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2022AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2755/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Digambar Malve, The Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. Plot No.2, Suvarnamudra Vs Bungalow, Mate Nursery Road, Sawarkar Nagar, Opp. Vishwas Bank, Nashik. Pan: Aftpm 5169 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Sanket Milind Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 09/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik Dated 09.09.2016For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Advances Of Rs.13,61,710/- Received By The Assessee From The Company, M/S. Kamal Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. Should Be Treated As Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) In The Hands Of The Assessee. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Was Holding A Running Account With The Above Company & For A Major Part Of The Year, The Assessee Had Advanced Amounts To The Company & Hence, The Advances Received By The Assessee For A Short Period During The Year Were In Consideration Of The Advances Given By The Assessee To Company During The Rest Of The Year & Hence, The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Were Not Applicable To The Instant Case. 3. Without Prejudice To The Above Ground, The Assessee Submits That If At All Any Addition Is To Be Made U/S 2(22)(E), Then The Accumulated Profits Of The Company As On 01.04.2011 Should Be Considered For
Section 194ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40
TDS u/s 194A in respect of the payments made to the above credit co-operative society which was engaged in the business of banking and hence, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was not justified.
6. Without prejudice to the above ground, the assessee submits that the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by introducing the second proviso was retrospective
