9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee from the Hegde Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., and whether it was loan or not, or if loan, then what was the nature of the loan - He has also not analysed, whether the assessee is a substantial shareholder in Hegde Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. or not - All these facts are necessary for coming to any conclusion on merits - without going into the merits of the issue, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Revenue. - ITA No. 44/Mum./2013 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2014 - Shri Rajendra And Shri Amit Shukla,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Haridas Bhat For the Respondent : Mr. Pitamber Das ORDER Per Amit Shukla, J. M. The aforesaid appeal has been preferred by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and further sum of Rs. 2,17,10,000 as share application money (pending allotment) from Hegde Hotels India P. Ltd. The Assessing Officer after detail discussion has clearly brought out that insofar as the amount of loan of Rs. 27,62,982 is concerned, the same is dividend income. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), though has discussed the entire assessment order as well as the assessee s submissions, but while recording the final conclusion, has committed certain factual errors insofar as that the assessee has made investments in Hegde Hotels India P. Ltd. which is not the correct fact. Further that the Hegde Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. has given loan to Mr. Sudhakar Hegde, who, in turn, has advanced to the assessee is also not correct. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned from the above facts, it is clear that the appellant has received loans from M/s. Hegde Hotels (India) P. Ltd. which are covered by the deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e). The presumption of the ld. A.O. perhaps appears to be that Hegde Hotels has given loan to Sudharkar Hedge who in turn advanced it to Tunga Regency. However, the facts are contrary to this. The shareholder namely, Mr. Sudhakar Hegde has applied for share application, which was later allotted to him. According to me, section 2(22)(e) does not apply to the present state of facts of the case and hence the addition made by the appellant is not correct. Further, in the case of ITO v/s Direct information India P Ltd. it was held by Hon'ble ITAT D Bench, Mumbai, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
