9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. who holds a substantial interest in the assessee company and are the share holders in both the companies. CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to take necessary action to tax the amount in dispute in the hands of Sh. Ashok Chand Burman and Mrs. Minnie Burman. No interference is called for in the well reasoned order dated 27.05.2015 passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 4944/DEL/2015 (A.Y.: 2011-12) - - - Dated:- 13-11-2019 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Revenue by: Sh. Subhakant Sahu, Sr. DR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a substantial interest in the assessee company. He further stated that Ld. First Appellate Authority has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to take necessary action to tax the amount in dispute in the hands of Sh. Ashok Chand Burman and Mrs. Minnie Burman. Therefore, no interference is called in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and hence, he requested that the appeal filed by the Department may be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the revenue authorities alongwith written submissions 20.11.2019 filed by the Ld. Sr. DR. For the sake of convenience, the written submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR are reproduced as under:- Sub: Written Submission in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition to income treating same as deemed dividend applying section 2(22)(c) as partners were holding more than 10 per cent shares - Whether addition was justified - Held, yes [In favour of revenue] 2.[2011] 14 taxmann.com 14 (Delhi) Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Travel Services*- A.K. SIKRI AND M.L. MEHTA, JJ. IT APPEAL NOS. 219, 223 AND 1204 OF 2010 AND 309 OF 2011 JULY + 11, 2011+ Section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deemed dividend - Whether to attract provisions of section 2(22)(e), person to whom loan or advance is mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the notice dated 6.8.2012 u/s. 143(2) of the Act which was served upon the assessee. In response to the notice dated 6.8.2012 the AR of the assessee appeared and filed the necessary evidences in support of the claim of the assessee which was examined by the Assessing Officer. After examining the necessary evidences filed by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee, the AO was of the view that assessee company is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in the business of Healthcare Diagnostics. In the immediate preceding year an addition of ₹ 3,58,95,735/- was made in the hands of the assessee company u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, as the assessee company has received a sum of ₹ 3,58,95,735/- from M/s Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t order dated 28.2.2014, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 27.5.2015 has allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition in dispute by holding that the amount of ₹ 3,20,00,000/- cannot be taxed as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee company who was not the share holder of the lender company. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that in the assessment year 2010-11 the deemed dividend in dispute was received by the assessee company from M/s Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd. would be taxed in the hands of Sh. Ashok Chand Burman and Mrs. Minnie Burman who are shareholders holding substantial interest in M/s Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd. who holds a substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
