9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders were common. In this case, it is seen that the sole ground for making the addition was that Mrs Rani Chawdhari was a common shareholder in both the companies. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3574/Del /2014 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2018 - SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Prateek Gupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Ghaziabad for assessment year 2010-11. Although the assessee has raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not a beneficial shareholder of the company which had given advance to M/s Dayal Steels Pvt. Ltd. He drew our attention to pages 12 and 13 of the Paper Book which contained list of shareholders of M/s Dayal Steels Pvt. Ltd for the year under consideration and submitted that the assessee was not a registered shareholder of M/s Dayal Steels Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted that there were trade transactions between the assessee Company and M/s Dayal Steels Pvt. Ltd. Our attention was drawn to pages 14 to 17 of the Paper Book which were copies of the accounts of the trade transactions held between the two companies. It was submitted that since the assessee company was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Taxman 209 (Del) wherein the Hon ble Delhi High Court held that the provisions relating to deemed dividend could not be invoked merely because the shareholders were common. In this case, it is seen that the sole ground for making the addition was that Mrs Rani Chawdhari was a common shareholder in both the companies. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue and respectfully following the ratio of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (supra), we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete this addition. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed . The order is pronounced in the ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
