9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue on 7.9.2012 is against the order of the CIT (A)-18, Mumbai dated 12.6.2012 for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of deemed dividend of ₹ 76,00,000/- made u/s 2(22)(e) without appreciating the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermined at ₹ 102,05,248/-. In the assessment AO made and addition of ₹ 76,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Aggrieved with the decision of the AO, assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, after considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) allowed the appeal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AY 2007-2008), dated 21.5.2012, wherein the Tribunal has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee and read out the relevant para 5 of the said order of the Tribunal. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the material placed before us. We have also perused the cited order of the Tribunal for the AY 2006-2007 in the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med. 8. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a shareholder of the lender companies. As explained by the said Special Bench decision, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are applicable to the shareholders only and not to the beneficial shareholder like the present assesse. As such, Revenue has not demonstrated how the said Special Bench decision is distinguishable on facts. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
