9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied out any business with M/s. Reliance Communications either in the past or during the year, then the assessee cannot be said to be having any business or professional relationship with M/s.Reliance Communication Ltd. - Reliance Communication and Reliance Group of Companies are independent entities and even for taxation purposes, they are separate and independent - the finding of fact that sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal aggrieved by the order dated 21st July 2005 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The case relates to Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. The argument before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.42 crores made under section 28(iv) of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raise the above noted substantial question of law. We are unable to agree. 4. The argument is premised on the applicability of section 28(iv) to the allotment of shares in question. The argument was that the assessee has derived benefit and in terms of clause (iv) of section 28 of the Act. Therefore, this is a benefit and which benefit also flows from the fact that one Mr.Manoj Modi who is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance and as pointed out in the Director's Report dated 16th August 2001. In such circumstances, and when the assessee was not having any direct business relations or not having carried out any business with M/s. Reliance Communications either in the past or during the year in question or subsequent, thereto, then the assessee cannot be said to be having any business or professional relationshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
