9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. We find, identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of group company, namely, M/s Jaypee Financial Services Ltd. [ 2019 (12) TMI 820 - ITAT DELHI] as held the assessee is not a member of any exchange and cannot execute CCM and the transactions on account of CCM done by the group concerns are not found to be false or untrue and since SEBI or the stock exchange has not taken any action treating the transactions to be non genuine and volume of CCM occurred are within the permissible limit allowed by the SEBI, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no perversity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition. Accordingly the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 36(1)(iii) on interest - Assessee could not establish that the interest bearing fund borrowed by it is wholly and exclusively used in business - assessee could not establish the diversion of interest bearing fund to Shri Gaurav Arora and M/s Arora Timber Ltd., free of interest - HELD THAT:- Since the facts of instant case are identical to the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order dated 17th March, 2016 of the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee company is a member of recognized stock exchanges i.e., National Commodity and Derivates Exchange Ltd.(NCDEX) and Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd.(MCX) and providing trading services in commodity market through NCDEX and MCX. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated in the case of assessee company as part of search proceedings on Jaypee Group on 30.03.2012. In response to notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income on 02.09.2013 declaring the taxable income at ₹ 53,99,850/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee company is a member of Stock Exchanges and doing trading for the clients as well as in its own account. It is also a client with M/s Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., for trading in commodities. These companies are registered with NSE, MCX, and NCDEX. These are also registered with the United Stock Exchange. During the course of search and post search proceedings, the evidences of Client Code Modifications do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or CCM in its code. (b) (i) The auditor in his report stated that as a result of CCM, during the year under consideration, client level shifting of profit amounting to ₹ 1,10,58,200/- and loss amounting to ₹ 2,42,400/- from one client to another client has been made by the assessee. As discussed above, it is apparent that the shifting of client code was not due to genuine reasons but for providing accommodation entries to some persons / concerns in lieu of consideration. One person has huge profit, he would like to take entry of loss, so that his profit may be reduced. Another person may have huge losses would like to take some profit, so that some capital is formed and same time he do not have to pay any taxes. This practice of providing profit and losses was very common in old days before advent of electronic exchanges. Even after introduction of online trade, the practice continues taking advantage of facility of CCM. The SEBI therefore continue to instructions with regard to regulating the CCM. At last now, the stock exchanges are required to inform Income Tax Department about the CCM done by each broker. (ii) The auditor in his report submitted that the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,49,81,929/- (which is 20% less than the sum of profit and loss shifted out of group), which comes to ₹ 8,74,367/-. The same is added to the income of the assessee company. (Addition ₹ 8,74,367/-) . 4. The AO similarly made addition of ₹ 6,36,885/- on account of absence of documentary evidences to substantiate the claim of business expenditure. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that although the assessee has not received any exempt income, however, there are investments in the opening and closing balance of the accounts and the income likely to be received from such investment is exempt and interest and other expenses are claimed in the Profit & Loss Account. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the AO made disallowance of ₹ 1,77,82,267/- to the total income of the assessee. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee company has granted advances in the nature of loan during the year to Shri Gaurav Arora and to another group company M/s Jaypee Capital Services Ltd. and M/s Arora Timber Ltd., in which Shri Gaurav Arora has a substantial interest. Therefore, invoking the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation is concerned, he deleted the same by observing as under:- "8.4 I have carefully considered assessment order, written submission, case laws relied upon and oral arguments of Ld. AR. The objections/arguments of the appellant, are discussed as under:- (i) It has been stated by the A.O. in the assessment order, CCM were done by the assessee, for its clients (other than group concerns), vide which profit is transferred to the clients, who have losses and transferred losses to the clients, who have profit, to reduce tax liability of the clients and accordingly, accommodation entry is given, on which commission income is determined by the A.O. @ 3.5C: of profit/loss shifted. (ii) It has been further analyzed by the A.O., that 20% of such CCM transactions, has been considered as genuine errors. However, the CCM, have been done in order to provide accommodation entries and therefore, it has been held that the assessee has earned commission @ 3.5% of ₹ 874,367/-, for providing such accommodation entries of ₹ 2,49,81,929/- (20% less than the sum of profit or loss shifted out of group). (iv) During appellate proceedings, appellant has submitted that the CCM, is modifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt codes changed to total orders (matched) on a daily basis Fine Less than or equal to 1% Nil Greater than 1% but less than or equal to 5% Fine of ₹ 500/- lump sum per day Greater than 5% but less than or equal to 10% Fine of ₹ 1,000/- lump sum per day Greater than 10% Fine of ₹ 10,000/- lump sum per day The above shall be effective from trade date June 01, 2004 Yours faithfully, For National Securities Clearing Corporation Ltd. Jaya Chatterjee Manager" Therefore, it is submitted by the appellant that in their case, these errors are less than 1% of the total number of transactions entered into and the entries relating to CCM and have been accepted by both the parties. The A.O. has not brought any evidence to support the allegation apart from suspicion on the basis of SEBI guidelines. Hence, it is submitted by the appellant that there is no justification for drawing any adverse inference on this account, without bringing any specific anomaly with regard to genuineness of the transactions and no fine has been imposed by concerned authorities in respect of CCM. It is further submitted by the appellant that the A.O. himself has made this ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the payments made for the alleged expenses under the head hotel and staff welfare expenses. The payment made through banking channel, will not substantiate the allowability of the alleged expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. In view of these facts, I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the A.O. in the assessment order and accordingly, the argument of the appellant is not acceptable. In view of the above, addition of ₹ 636,835/- on account of hotel and staff welfare expenses, is confirmed. Accordingly, ground no. 15, is hereby dismissed." 9. So far as the disallowance of ₹ 1,77,82,267/- by invoking the provisions of section 14A read with section 8D by the AO is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the same by observing as under:- "10.3 Findings: The findings are as under:- 10.4 I have carefully considered assessment order, written submission, case laws relied upon and oral arguments of Ld. AR. The objections/arguments of the appellant are discussed as under:- (i) As per A.O., during the year under consideration, though, no dividend income has been earned, but the assessee has made the investment amounting to ₹ 1,10,61,51 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of assessee company, it can be observed that, it has paid interest amounting to ₹ 1,90,91,632 - on borrowed funds. Further, on perusal of accounts it is observed that the related person/ concerns of assessee company, has debit balances during the year under consideration. (i) As per A.O., in the assessment proceedings, it has been stated that the peak debit balance in case of Shri. Gaurav Arora is ₹ 11.15 crore. The assessee has not charged any interest on such alleged loan provided to him. (ii) During the appellate proceedings, it has been submitted by the appellant that chart showing the nexus between the borrowed funds used for business purposes and interest paid filed now, was also submitted during the assessment proceedings, vide which it can be clearly observed that borrowed funds are utilized for business only. From the perusal of submission filed during assessment proceedings, it can be observed that there are regular business transactions amongst the group persons / entities and the same are running throughout the year, which are attributed to the business of shares/futures/option of securities etc. In this background, the interest element on these fun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... activities with the clients and there is no loan transaction with the alleged client. Accordingly, I agree with the main argument of the appellant and therefore, findings of the A.O. for making alleged disallowance of interest, are erroneous. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 95,45,816/-, is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 17, is hereby allowed." 11. So far as the addition of ₹ 19,34,21,760/- made by the AO on account of deemed dividend by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the same by observing as under:- "12.4 I have carefully considered assessment order, written submission, case laws relied upon and oral arguments of Ld. AR. The objections/arguments of the appellant are discussed as under:- The A.O. in the assessment order, has made an addition of ₹ 19,34,21,760/- 2(22)(e), for the -following reasons: (i) The companies namely M/s Jaypee Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.(JCPL), and M/s Futurz Next services (P) Ltd.(FNSL), are closely held companies. The assessee has substantial holding in JCPL. There are large number of transactions including payments by the JCPL to the assessee. Further, the group companies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed pick and choose, whereby he picked up only the debit entries of the cheque payments, but has ignored the debit and credit side of the transactions relating to purchase and sale of share/currency/derivatives. (b) Both the above alleged accounts extracted by the special auditor and A.O., did not take into consideration, the business transactions entered into by the appellant/concern with this company. This fact is evident from the amount of ₹ 19,34,21,760/-, computed by the A.O. in the case of JCPL on the basis of alleged re-casted copy of account, as against the actual copy of account maintained in the books of accounts of this company. (c) It has been further submitted that the even alleged account prepared by the special auditor (in case of JCPL), which has not been followed by the A.O. and has prepared another account. The A.O. has taken alleged loan amount by adopting lesser of the payment made by JCPL to the appellant/concerns and net balance available on a particular date. Therefore, it is, submitted that even the alleged account prepared by the A.O., does not reflect the correct nature of the account, as same is prepared without following any accounting principle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration. These transactions are nowhere prohibited under any existing law and not covered u/s 2(22)(e) of the act. (c) The transactions entered into are in the regular course of business and it is not a case where it has been alleged by the A.O. that transactions of sale/purchase of share/currency/derivatives, are not genuine. In fact, these purchase and sale transactions, have not even doubted by the special auditor in the audit report as well as by the A.O. in assessment order. The special auditor and A.O. has re-casted the ledger account by not considering the business transaction of sale/purchase of share/currency/derivatives, which is not correct, since deemed dividend cannot be computed by way of pick and choose of few transactions, rather an account has to be considered in its entirety. The above view, is also supported by the ratio laid down in the decision by Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd., [2009] 184 TAXMAN 483 (DELHI), as under: " 11. The counsel for the appellant has very strenuously urged that neither the Tribunal nor the judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra) deals with that par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se (e) of section 2(22) of the Act, which is pari materia with clause (e) of section 2(6A) of the 1922 Act, plainly seeks to bring within the tax net accumulated profits which are distributed by closely held companies to its shareholders in the form of loans. The purpose being that persons who manage such closely held companies should not arrange their affairs in a manner that they assist the shareholders in avoiding the payment of taxes by having these companies pay or distribute, what would legitimately be dividend in the hands of the shareholders, money in the form of an advance or loan. 10.5 If this purpose is kept in mind then, in our view, the word 'advance ' has to be read in conjunction with the word 'loan '. Usually attributes of a loan are that it involves positive act of lending coupled with acceptance by the other side of the money as loan: it generally carries an interest and there is an obligation of repayment. On the other hand, in its widest meaning the term 'advance ' may or may not include lending. The word 'advance' if not found in the company of or in conjunction with a word 'loan ' may or may not include the obligation of repayment. If it does then it would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by stock exchanges. (d) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to delete disallowance u/s 36(i)(iii). (e) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to delete disallowance made u/s 14A. (f) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in arriving at the conclusion that the transaction in the client ledger account, are related to business activities. (g) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts by holding that recasting of ledger account of assessee in the books of JCSL by the AO is not correct. (h) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of ₹ 19,34,21,760/- made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in holding that all the transactions with JCPL are business transaction, thus, ignoring the fact that assessee company i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beyond 1%, there are some minor penalty described by the exchange. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) while deleting the addition has observed that the volume of Client Code Modification occurred, are within the permissible limit allowed by the SEBI and the Exchange/SEBI, has not found any violation of rules and regulations related to CCM, and the CCM transactions are falling within the prescribed limit of less than 1%. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of lncomtax-13 Vs. Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd.; the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in case of ACIT vs. Kunvarji Finance (P.) Ltd., [2015] 40 ITR (Trib) 64, order dated 19.03.2015; the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sambhavnath Investment Vs. ACIT, vide ITA No.3109/Mum/2011, order dated 31st December 2013 and various other decisions, he submitted that identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. He further submitted that the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the company, namely, Jaypee Financial Services Ltd., for AY 2011-12 has decided the identical issue and has deleted the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of rules and regulations relating to CCM and the CCM transactions are falling within the prescribed limit. It is the submission of the Ld. DR that it is not a genuine mistake and the transactions are not genuine. Further the CCM was done by the assessee through its sister concern M/s. Futurz Next Services Limited through which the profit of the assessee company was reduced by ₹ 1.90 crores. According to the Ld. DR the CCM is akin to penny stock. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the transactions entered into by the assessee are not found to be false or untrue and although SEBI is the regulator no action has been taken by SEBI holding that the transactions are not genuine. Further no adverse material has been found by the search party during the course of search and the revenue even have not gone to the broker who has done the CCM. It is also his argument that it is not known as to whom the account has shifted. 11. We find some force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that client code modification is the internal matter of the broker and assessee has no control ov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sible for CCM if any done at the end of the broker. The AO except for the fact of receiving information from the DIT (I & Cl), has not considered the other aspects of the transaction to be considered as the transactions of the assessee. The other relevant aspect i.e. receipt and /or payments of monies, the time gap between the actual transactions on the stock exchange and the modification of the client code numbers of such transactions by the office of the registered share and stock broker, non-prohibition of client code modification by either the stock exchange or SEBI. In the order of assessment, the AO has stated the complete details of the Modus Operandi of creation of fictitious profit and / or losses with a malafide intention of escaping taxes. However, the AO has neither proved nor lead any evidence in case of any single transaction, which he has added to the income of the assessee, being of the type whose Modus Operandi is similar to the nature where he alleges to be added to the income of the assessee. 8. It is common knowledge that any transaction either relating to shares or derivatives to be considered as completed and taxable/deductible in the hands of any assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot imposed any penalty. No co- relation between the assessee on the one hand and the other parties on the other hand has been brought on record to co-relate that the parties to whom the alleged profits or loss is supposed to have been diverted to reduce the taxable income of the assessee, has been brought on record to show that there was any collusion with each other and were known to each, so that one party diverted its profit or loss to the other parties. Even nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the said losses were purchased and the party were given cheque or cash payment in view of such favours. According to us, such co-relation was necessary to fasten any liability upon the assessee. 12. No new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT. Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT. Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, these grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed." 13. We find the Ahmedabad Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... With reference to point C. as referred above, Members may please note that the client code modifications will be allowed only upto 11:55 p.m. in international referenceable commodities (i.e. commodities traded upto 11:55 p.m.) Page | 18 Members are requested to take note of the FMC directives and ensure strict compliance." From the above, it is evident that client code modification is permitted intra- day, i.e. on the same day. As per Commodity Exchange, if client code modification is upto 1% of the total orders, there is no penalty and if it is greater than 1% but less than 5%, the penalty is ₹ 500/-. If it is greater than 5% but less than 10%, penalty is ₹ 1000/- and if it is greater than 10%, then penalty is ₹ 10,000/-. From the above, the only inference that can be drawn is that as per MCX, the client code modification upto 1% is absolutely normal and therefore, the broker is permitted to modify the client code upto 1% without paying any penalty. Even client code modification upto 5% is not considered unusually high because that is also permitted with the token penalty of ₹ 500/-. In the context of the circular issued by Commodity Exchange, let u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is accepted that the client code modification was with malafide intention, then the profit or loss accrued till the client code modification can be considered in the case of the assessee but by no stretch of imagination the profit/loss arising after the client code modification can be considered in the hands Of the assessee. 11. The Id. CIT(A) in paragraph 4.13 of his order has also recorded the findings that "all transactions at the Commodities Exchanges have been duly accounted in the books of account maintained by the concerned parties. Such profits/loss has been duly accounted whenever the transactions have been closed. Thus, whatever profits have been generated or accounting of actual trade, have been offered and brought to the charge of tax in the cases of concerned assessees." These findings of fact recorded by the Id. CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Revenue at the time of hearing before us. When the transaction has been duly accounted for and the profit/loss has accrued to the concerned parties in whose names transactions have been closed, there cannot be any basis or justification for considering those profit/loss in the case of the assessee on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s having business transactions with the clients and the transactions with these clients are only business transactions and no loan transaction has taken place. He submitted that the assessee during the impugned assessment year has incurred a sum of ₹ 1,90,91,632/- towards interest on borrowed funds out of which the AO has disallowed an amount of ₹ 95,45,816/- on estimate basis. He submitted that the assessee company has not granted any loan to Shri Gaurav Arora or Arora Timber Ltd. as alleged by the AO. All these transactions are business transactions and there are regular business transactions throughout the year wherein there are regular receipt and payment transactions accruing in the account. Further, all these transactions are attributed to the business of shares/future/auction of securities. 20.1 Referring to various decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT, [2007] 158 Taxman 74 (SC), and in the case of Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, [2015] 63 taxmann.com 308 (SC), he submitted that the advances given to group companies are allowable expenses u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since, in the instant case, these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. We find, the ld.CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that the assessee is having business transaction with Shri Gaurav Arora and M/s Arora Timber Ltd., and no loan transaction has taken place. Further, the assessee is having sufficient own capital and free reserves which is more than the advances given to Shri Gaurav Arora and M/s Arora Timber Ltd. 21.1. We find, identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of group concerns, namely, Jaypee Capital Serves Ltd. We find, the Tribunal vide ITA No.1384/Del/2017, order dated 17.01.2020, for AY 2013-14 while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has observed as under:- "11. So far as addition of ₹ 24,15,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) u/s 36(1)(iii) is concerned on account of disallowance of interest is concerned, assessee company has come up with specific plea that it has not granted any loans to Futurz Next Services Pvt. Ltd. rather all are regular business transactions supported with regular receipt and payment transactions occurring in the account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly, we uphold the same. The ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." 23. In view of the above and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the ld.CIT(A) on this issue, we do not find any infirmity in the same. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 24. Ground of appeal (e) relates to the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,77,82,267/- made by the AO u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. 25. The ld. DR submitted that the AO was justified in making the addition since it was showing substantial investments in shares of other companies and the assessee is required to incur expenses on acquiring the funds for investments. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. 26. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that since the assessee has not received any dividend income during the year, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court, no addition u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D is called for and, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) is fully justified. 27. We have heard the rival arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction and transacted by the assessee being a client and shareholder of the company. He submitted that similar addition on account of deemed dividend was made in the case of Shri Gaurav Arora which has been deleted by the Tribunal vide ITA No.2034 & 2035/Del/2016, order dated 17th December, 2018 for AY 2011-12. He submitted that facts being similar, the ld.CIT(A) is fully justified in deleting the addition. He also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 462 (Del); ii) CIT v, Sunil Sethi in ITA No. 569/2009 dated 03.02.2010 (Delhi HC); iii) CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 476 (Del); iv) CIT v. Arvind Kumar Jain in ITA No. 589 of 2011 dated 30.09.2011 (Delhi HC); v) Krishan Murari Lal Agarwal v. DCIT [2013] 59 SOT 136 (ITAT, Agra Bench) 28.3 He also relied on the CBDT Circular No.19/2017 dated 12.06.2017 whereby it has been clarified that the advances which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word 'advance' u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) being in consonance with law should be upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e) of the Act. We find, the CBDT vide Circular No.19/2017, dated 12th June, 2017 has clarified as under:- "3. In view of the above it is, a settled position that trade advances, which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word 'advance' in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, henceforth, appeals may not be filed on this ground by Officers of the Department and those already filed, in Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon. " 29.2 The various decisions relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee also support his case to the proposition that the word 'advance' which is in the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transaction would not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this view of the matter and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A) on this issue, we do not find any infirmity in his order. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed. 30. Grounds of appeal No. (j), (k) and (l) being general in nature are dismissed. 31. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
