Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
Deputy Commissioner Of ... vs M/S Dusters Total Solutions (P)Ltd, ... on 19 December, 2017 cites

Dcit 2(1), Mumbai vs Tata Motors Ltd ( Earlier Known As Tata ... on 31 August, 2017

On perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, it is not clear whether the TDS officer had examined this issue with reference to statutory records maintained under the Companies Act. Therefore, this issue requires remand to the TDS Officer. Accordingly we remand the matter back to the file of the TDS officer for the purpose of verifying the number of shares held by Shri Jasmer Puri as on the date of grant of advance. While computing accumulated profits, for the purpose of amount of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, capital reserves cannot be taken into consideration in the light of decision of the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. TVS Motors Ltd. (128 ITD 47). Therefore, this issue also we remit back to the file of the TDS officer. It is ordered accordingly.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 33 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Late Shri C.R. Dass on 17 March, 2011

He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. C.R.Dass (204 Taxman 227) in support of the proposition that share-holding on the date of grant of advance should alone be considered. He finally submitted that advances are made only for the purpose of business. He fairly conceded that he is not in a position to lead evidence in support of this contention. As regards shareholding of JP, there is no dispute with regard to the percentage of shareholding held by him that it is more than 10%.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1