2011 (10) TMI 728

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... kash Jain O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH By way of the present appeal the revenue challenges the order dated 17.6.2010 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of ₹ 29,14,141/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of deemed dividend income u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act whereas by way cross objection the assessee challenges the order of the learne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f shares of Super Galvanised Sheets Private Limited to the extent of 6.73% in the capacity of Yograj Narang HUF. The assessee in his individual capacity was holding 5.4% shares of the aforesaid same company. The stand of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee was beneficial owner of more than 10% shares, therefore, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are applicable. Now the questio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h the HUF. The HUF shares are 6.73% whereas individual shares are 5.40% of the total issued capital. Even in JCIT v. Kunal Organics Private Limited; 164 Taxman 169 (Ahd) it was held that individual and HUF are two different entities and, therefore, their share holdings cannot be clubbed for applying provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Identical ratio was laid down in Appeal No. 4 (Mum)/2006 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X