9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar, Adv. And Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Adv. GA/3/2022 The Court :- This application has been filed by the respondent/assessee to recall the order dated 20th June, 2020 by which discretion was exercised and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. After we have elaborately heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant/assessee and the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that section 2(22)(e) was not applicable to the loan amounts in question received by the assessee during the year under consideration from other group companies ? ii) Whether on the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assessing Officer in original assessment order passed under section 153A/143(3) of the Act, 1961 erroneously not added income of Rs. 5,82,00,000/- being deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 chargeable to tax without making any enquiry and verification whatsoever which rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SUPRABHA INDUSTRIES LTD.; (2022) 136 taxmann.com 259(Calcutta), 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 decision in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
