9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the question of law which has been raised for consideration was considered in the case of SUPRABHA INDUSTRIES LTD [ 2022 (1) TMI 796 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that Section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not be applicable where the assessee availed unsecured loan from its group company which was paid back with interest in the same year. In the light of the above, following the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by the revenue is covered by a decision in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SUPROVA INDUSTRIES LIMITED ; 2022 136 taxmann.Com 259(Cal). Therefore, the application being GA/3/2022 is dismissed. ITAT/38/2022 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity) is directed against the order dated 29th May, 2019 passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o avoid payment to tax on dividend the assessee has obtained loan from Vijayshree Industries (P) Ltd. and Mantri Engineering company in which the assessee is holding 19.34% shares and 49.88% shares as such the loan amount of Rs. 5,07,00,000/- and Rs. 75,00,000/- be treated as the income of the assessee and comes under the mischief of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Act, 1961 in accordance of its purported finding that the Assessing Officer has not only made the enquiry or verification as required but a conscious decision was taken by him that section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable to the loan transaction which is arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
