9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II Ludhiana has erred in accepting the contention of the assessee that the addition can be made in the case of the shareholder thus failing to appreciate the correct essence of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II Ludhiana be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally disposed of." In the course of the present appellate proceedings, the learned Departmental representative placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned authorised representative, on the other hand, contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 1 (SC) ; (iii) CIT v. H. K. Mittal [1996] 219 ITR 420 (All) ; (iv) Harish Chand Golecha (HUF) v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 30 (Raj) ; (v) CIT v. Raj Kumar Singh and Co. [2007] 295 ITR 9 (All) ; (vi) CIT v. Hotel Hilltop [2009] 313 ITR 116 (Raj) ; (vii) Asst. CIT v. Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR (AT) 146 (Mumbai) ; (viii) Seamist Properties P. Ltd. v. ITO [2005] 95 TTJ (Mum) 201 ; (ix) Deputy CIT v. National Travel Services [2009] 31 SOT 76 (Delhi) (x) MTAR Technologies P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 39 SOT 465 (Hyd). The relevant findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are reproduced hereunder : "4. I have carefully gone through the assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a company to a concern in which the shareholder has a substantial interest. This contention of counsel of the appellant is well founded as the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are applicable to the shareholder only. The various decisions relied upon by the learned authorised representative in his written submissions are directly in support of the case of the appellant. Thus, under the above circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) could only be applied to the shareholder and the appellant-company not being a shareholder in M/s. Santosh Box Factory Ltd., and thus the addition cannot be sustained in the hands of the appellant being legally incorrect. Hence, the addition is hereby deleted. However, the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
