Case Law Details
Shri Vinod Kumar Mittal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
The provision of S. 2(22)(e) along with its Explanations – 2 as stood at the relevant point of time, shall only mean that the expression “accumulated profits” shall only include all the profits of the company up to the date of distribution which are normal revenue profits. The words used are plain, clear and unambiguous that only the profits of the company are to be considered for this purpose. The said provision nowhere indicates that capital subsidy/grant should also be included/ considered within the expression “accumulated profits”.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld.CIT(A), Ajmer dated 27-07-2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 raising therein following grounds of appeal.
“(1) (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining addition of Rs.43,45,236/- treating the same as deemed dividend under sec. 2(22)(e) of the I.T.Act, 1961.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
