9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act'), against the order dated 24.8.2011, rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B' (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), passed in ITA No. 514/CHANDI/2011, in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08. The Tribunal has upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), deleting the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act would not apply. It has been observed that only the share holder can be assessed on account of deemed dividend and not the Company under Section 2(22)(e). In support of the aforesaid view the CIT (A) placed reliance on CIT v. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd., (2010) 190 Taxman, 144 (Bom) and the view of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Hilltop, (2009) 313 ITR 116 (Raj). 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re given. The CIT (A), thus, concluded that the condition laid down in Section 2(22)(e) with regard to minimum share holding by the share holder in the assessee company vis-a-vis M/s AFPL is not fulfilled. The share holding of different persons cannot be clubbed to decide the issue of fulfilling the conditions laid down in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis, the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emed dividend and not the company under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue- appellant. During the course of hearing we asked a pointed question to the learned counsel for the revenue about the status of the judgments rendered by the Bombay High Court and Rajasthan High Court in the cases of Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. (supra) and Hotel Hilltop (supra) re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
