9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the Cross Objection which is filed after a delay of 65 days. In view of the facts and circumstances as pointed out in the application moved for condonation of delay in filing the Cross Objection i.e. on the basis of advice of earlier counsel for the assessee, we find merit in the claim of the assessee and the delay of 65 days is hereby condoned. 3. The appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee on the similar issue were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in ITA No.831/Chd/2011 are as under: "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the record. The facts relating to the issue raised in the present appeal are that the assessee is a partnership concern and constituted of two partners Shri Charanjit Singh and Smt.Harvinder Kaur. The said Shri Charanjit Singh was Director of Vishivkarma Industries Pvt. Ltd. having 23% share holding in the said company. The Assessing Officer was of the view that holdings of the partners of the erstwhile partnership concern were more than 10% and hence the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were applicable. The CIT (Appeals) in turn relied upon the ratio laid down in Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and computed the disallowance of Rs.5 lacs. 9. We find that the present issue is covered by the ratio laid down by Chandigarh Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeal is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Arora Knitfab Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The assessee firm before us was not a shareholder in the concern M/s Vishivkarma Industries Pvt. Ltd. It is only the partner Shri Charanjit Singh who was also the Director of the said company. Undoubtedly the assessee had business relations with its sister concern and over and above the sales amount, the said company had given cheques to the assessee of Rs.2 lacs dated 28.7.2005 and Rs.5 lacs dated 8.9.2005. Further cheque of Rs.5 lacs dated 27.10.2005 was given by the assessee to the said company. The said transactions though were in the nature of advances or loans between the assessee partnershi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
