TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the parties as admittedly the assessee was not shareholder in the Amigo Brushes Pvt. Ltd. The Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ankitach(P) Ltd. [2011 (5) TMI 325 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The Delhi High Court has held that if the assessee company does not hold a share in other company from which it had received deposit then it cannot be treated tobe a deemed d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal has been filed by Revenue challenging the order of the Tribunal and this Court had admitted the appeal on the following question of law. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act on intercorporate deposits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by his order dated 30th September 2004 rejected the claim of the assessee and treated the deposits as loan and consequently deemed to be a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and accordingly computed the tax. The assessee filed appeal which was dismissed by CIT(A) on 11th May 2006. The assessee filed Second Appeal which has been allowed by the Tribunal on 5th June 2009 and the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eholder in Amigo Brushes Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, the deposit received by the assessee of ₹ 25 lacs from Amigo Brushes Pvt Ltd. was an intercorporate deposit and not a deemed dividend and, therefore, though this aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal but since the order of the Tribunal can be supported by another legal reason on the admitted facts, we need not send the matter back. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
