Ita/311/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Namdhari Seeds

1 IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THER 2 DAY OF JUNE, 2010. PRESENT THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SRBBNIVASKH GOWDA ITA NO.311/2015 BETWEEN: 1.|THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. D |THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX|CIRCLE-2 (1), NO. 59, HMT BHAVAN,CIRCLE-2 (1), NO. 59, HMT BHAVAN, 6 FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. ... APPELLANTS (By SRI. DILIP, ADV., FOR SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. NAMDHARI SEEDS,SRI SAI ARCADE’, NO.8,SRI SAI ARCADE’, NO.8, 12 CROSS, Ll PHASE, IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP, 2 RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 O98. _. RESPONDENT| THIS ITAIS|HILE])UNDERSBC .260-AINCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER|DATED|20/02/2015.PASSBHBIN|ITANO.1746/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT 2003-A2OO4. OF THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,JAYANT PATEL J.,DERELIVERTHE FOLLOWING:| JU DBiGMENT Theappellants / Revenuhave|preferredthepresent appeal by raising following substantial questionof law:- “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal is|right in law in holding that the addition made|under section 2(22)(e) of the Act on theamount paid to the assessee firm by the|company M/s. NSPL, could not be assessed|as ‘deemed dividend’ in the hands of the|assessee-firm even when all the ingredients|of the said provision are satisfied in the case| of assessee and Section 2(22)(e) of the Act|brings to tax as deemed dividend certain|payments made by a company by way ofadvance or loan to a shareholder or payment|to @ concern in which the shareholder is qimember or partner and in which he has|substantial interest, without appreciating thatin the present case, the partner, Shri ThakurUday Singh of the firm M/s. Namdhaariseeds (50% share of profit), is also a|Shareholder in M/s. Namdhaart Seeds Put.|Ltd., (64% stake)?” 2 |We have heard Sri. Dilip, learned counsel|appearing for Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel for theappellants. 3.|Learned counsel for the appellants / Revenufairly conceded that the matter is already covered by thedecision of this Court dated O8.01.210s4 in ITA!No.322/2012 and allied matters whereby the questions formulated were answered in favour of assessee againstthe Revenue. 4In view of the above declaration, we find thatwhen the matter is already covered by the decision ofthis Court, the present appeal shall also stand disposedof. PMR/-| SD/-.JUDGE| SD/-.JUDGE|