The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0100 (Ahd-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH

RAJPAL YADAV, V.P. & AMARJIT SINGH, A.M.

Precimetal Cast (P) Ltd. v. ITO

ITA No. 3499/Ahd/2015

16 December, 2020

Partly in favour of assessee.

Assessee by: P.B. Parmar, A.R.

Revenue by: Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. D.R.

ORDER

Amarjit Singh, A.M.

This assessee s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises from order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad dated 27-10-2015, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act .

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :--

1. The learned assessing officer has erred in law.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law the assessing officer has erred in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 20,73,000, instead of Rs. 3,17,460 returned. As such aggregate estimated additions of Rs. 17,55,535 may please be deleted.

3. The learned assessing officer has erred in making an addition of Rs. 13,21,198 on account of deemed Dividend as the assessee had taken unsecured loan for business purpose, as he was in need of funds for running the business properly and its sister concern had liquid funds at that time. It was a prudent business practice on the part of the assesse in borrowing funds from its sister concern at a lower rate of 12% than to borrow funds from outside market at the rate of 18% p.a. or more. The unsecured loan has already been repaid in the current F.Y. 2014-15. The learned assessing officer has erred in interpreting the soul intention of the assesse and the section 2(22)(e) coming in force.

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT