9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv For the Respondent : Sh. Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi dated 27.12.2017 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 9,50,00,000/ - made u/s 2(22) (e) as deemed dividend ignoring the fact that as per the books of the assessee the shares allotted to the assessee company by the lender company without any consideration? 2. Whether CIT(A) is justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,00/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and added the same into the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against this, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the material and examining the documents placed before him deleted the addition. Aggrieved against this, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. Ld. Sr. DR representing the Revenue vehemently argued that the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the assessee addition He submitted that the Assessing Officer had given a finding on fact that the transaction of 9,50,00,000/- was a loan transaction. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified to treat the same as deemed dividend. The Ld. Sr. DR took us through the assessment order and raised the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing ₹ 4.66 crores to Teleecare at beginning of the year and further sum of ₹ 9.5 crores was received during the year and that entire amount was returned back by assessee to Teleecare during the year itself. Accordingly, addition of ₹ 9,50,00,000/- was made u/s 2(22)(e). 6.1 It was submitted that AO has misunderstood the transaction as no loan/amount was received by assessee from Teleecare. It was submitted that the relevant entry was regarding receipt of shares and not of any loan amount. Assessee invested ₹ 9,67,66,000/- in the shares of Teleecare as on 01/04/2013 and further, investment of ₹ 9,50,00,000/- was made during the year. It was submitted that assessee vide letter dated 08/11/2016 has informed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hom unsecured loan has been obtained by the appellant company has been mentioned in this letter. The list does not show Teleecare as lender. 5. Letter dated 08/12/2016 (copy also filed before me, as Appendix-E) / clarifying that the assessee has not received any loan from M/s Teleecare Network India Pvt. Ltd during the year. 6. 6.2 I have examined the above referred documents and noticed that appellant was having investment in shares of Teleecare Network India Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 9,67,66,000/- as on 01/04/2013 and ₹ 19,17,66,000/- as on 31/03/2014. The appellant was allotted 4750000 shares @ 20/- each for ₹ 9,50,00,000/- during FY 2013-14. Vide letter dated 28/11/2016, the appellant filed details regarding unsecu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
