9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Parin Shah, ARs ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: The captioned appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] dated 03/03/2015 in the matter of assessment order dated 30/12/2011 passed by the AO s.143(3) rws 147 of the Act relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal issue came up for determination in assessee's own case relevant to AY 2006-07 in ITA No.1429/Ahd/2014 order dated 15/05/2017 wherein the order of the CIT(A) that the loans/advances received by the assessee does not fall within the purview under s.2(22)(e) of the Act and thus not susceptible to tax was approved by the Coordinate Bench. 4. The Ld.DR relied upon the order of the AO. 5. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder by virtue of deeming fiction under s.2(22)(e) of the Act where the assesseecompany itself is not a shareholder of the lending company, notwithstanding the fact that both the companies (lender-company and assessee-company) had common shareholders having substantial interest in both the companies. 6.1 As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal And Sons (HUF) vs. CIT (Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd made it taxable at the hands of the said shareholder. It is therefore ostensible that such a provision which is a deeming provision and fictionally creates certain kind of receipts as dividends is to be given strict interpretation. It follows that unless all the conditions contained in the said provision are fulfilled the receipt cannot be deemed as dividend. 6.2. It is an undisputed fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er s.2(22)(e) in its hands in view of long line of judicial precedents including Baumik Colour Pvt.Ltd. 313 ITR 146 (Bom)[SB] approved in Universal of Medicare 324 363 (Bom) and CIT vs. Impact Containers (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 346 (Bom). In view of the judicial precedents governing the issue, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
