9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or assessment year 2007-08 against order dated 31.1.2011 of ld CIT(A) on the following ground: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee that capital of ₹ 60,64,205 received by the assessee from M/s. Karodia Construction Pvt Ltd., where in the karta of the assessee is a share holder, is not covered u/s.2(22)(e) as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt Ltd. 118 ITD 1/(313 ITR 146(AT), held that loans received by the assessee from M/s. karodia Constructions PLtd., cannot be treated as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act as recipient of money should be a registered share holder as well as beneficial share holder whereas in the case of the assessee none of the above conditions are satisfied. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held that in order to attract the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, following four conditions are the sine quo non i.e. (i) the assessee should be a shareholder of the company ; (ii) the company should be a closely held company in which the public are not substantially interested ; (iii) there must be payment by way of advance or loan to a shareholder or any payment by the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Hotel Hill Top (supra). It is relevant to state that same view has been taken by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Universal Medicare Private Limited, 324 ITR 263(Bom) as well as by Authority of Advance Ruling in the case of Madura Coats P. Ltd., In re, 274 ITR 609. 7. In view of above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). Henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
