9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n made u/s 2(22)(e) holding that the assessee was not holding shares in SCDPL (Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Private Limited) at the time of loan/ advance given by Kumar Urban Developers (KUDL)? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) justified in relying solely on the letter of company secretary stating that the share holding pattern was changed during middle of year? 3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) justified in allowing the claim of the assessee without verification of change of share holding pattern without filing of the same with ROC (Registrar of Company)? 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... runjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and also was holding 45% of shares in M/s. Kumar Urban Developers Ltd.. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that since the respondent-assessee was common shareholder in both the companies holding more than 10% of shares, the loan given by M/s. Kumar Urban Developers Ltd. to M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. constitutes a deemed dividend within the ambit of provisions of section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the respondentassessee. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the respondent-assessee contended that the advance given by M/s. Kumar Urban Developers Ltd. to M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. is in the nature of business transaction, hence, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of case. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have come to the conclusion that as on the relevant date i.e. date of advance made by M/s. Kumar Urban Developers Ltd. to M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. that the appellant is not shareholder in M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. merely based on the letter issued by Company Secretary of the said company. He further submits that it is merely an afterthought that the respondent-assessee took the plea that the he is not shareholder in the said company. 7. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that when an assessee is not a shareholder in the company, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s proved by filing the shareholding pattern of the said company. Even on remand to the Assessing Officer by ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer also concurred with the submission of the respondent-assessee that he is not a shareholder in M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. at the relevant point of time. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly concluded that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) have no application to the facts of the present case. This fact has not been controverted by the ld. Sr. DR. Since the order of the ld. CIT(A) is based on proper appreciation of facts and law, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. 9. In the result, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
