9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate. O R D E R In the cause list ITA No. 333/2006, Commissioner of Income Tax versus M/s Gopal Clothing Company Private Limited, which pertains to assessment year 1996-97, is listed. However, we notice that along with the said appeal, the Registry has also enclosed files of ITA Nos. 732/2004, 739/2004, 722/2005, 857/2006 and 861/2006. These appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and circumstances of the present case?" 4. The respondent assessee is a company and had 10 shares in East India Impex (Delhi) Private Limited. The assessee did not hold 10% or more voting rights in East India Impex (Delhi) Private Limited. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 2(22)(e) of the Act on the ground that one Subhash Sahni had more than 10% shareholding in East India Impex(Delhi) P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95, 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively. The reduction was made by the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that certain amounts had been repaid and that cannot be treated and regarded as deemed dividend. The Assessing Officer, we may note had computed the deemed dividend by taking into account the debit balance at the end of the year but did not reduce from the said amount the credit balance. We wish to clari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal also examined the merits of the case and held that the transactions between the assessee and the East India Impex (Delhi) Private Limited were business transactions and cannot be treated as loans or advance. 7. We need not examine the second aspect on merits. The first aspect, i.e., whether or not the respondent assessee had the requisite voting rights and shareholding of common shareholde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holders of the assessee company were also shareholders of the company which had given "loan/advances" is not suffice and does not meet the requirement of Section 2(22)(e). The voting rights of the shareholder, i.e., the assessee can and should be taken into consideration. 8. When we apply the aforesaid legal position to the admitted facts as elucidated and stated above, the question of law has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
