TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant appeal, as filed by the department is rejected. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5690/Mum/2011, Cross Objection CO No.131/Mum/2012, ITA No. 5691/Mum/2011, Cross Objection CO No.133/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2014 - Shri N. K. Billaiya And Shri Vivek Varma,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For the Respondent : Shri Santosh Kumar ORDER Per Vivek Varma, J. M. The two appeals and cross objections have been filed by the department and the assessee(s) respectively against order of the CIT(A) 40, Mumbai, dated 31.05.2011 in both the assesses. 2. Since the issues as raised are identical in both the appeals, we, therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity are disposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the assessee received ₹ 60,22,308/- as incurred loan from M/s Sunil Mantri Realty Ltd. (SMRL). This amount was treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax act, 1961 and brought to tax. Before the AO, the assessee, vehemently objected to the addition proposed to be made under a deeming fiction and submitted that the amount received from SMRL was a normal business transaction. The assessee also submitted before the AO that the assessee was not a shareholder in the company SMRL. 5. The above facts were rubbished by the AO and added it back to the income of the assessee. 6. The assessee approached the CIT(A), who, after going through the facts of shareholding pattern came to the conclusion, it is an u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/Mum/2012 : Asst. year 2008-09 : 13. At the time of hearing, the AR submitted that the assessee does not wish to pres the CO. 14. Since the CO is not pressed, it is dismissed as not pressed. 15. In the result, ITA No. 5690/Mum/2011 filed by the department is dismissed. CO No. 131/Mum/2012 filed by the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 5691/Mum/2011: Asst. year 2009-10: Dept Appeal : 16. The following grounds have been raised by the department: 1 a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of sec 2(22)(e) of IT Act, 1961 is not applicable in the case of assessee company without appreciating the facts that the deemed dividend has to be taxed on advance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were rubbished by the AO and added it back to the income of the assessee. 19. The assessee approached the CIT(A), who, after going through the facts of shareholding pattern came to the conclusion, it is an undisputed fact that appellant M/s Mantri Power Ltd. is not a shareholder of the lender company M/s Sunil Mantri Realty Ltd. the appellant filed a list of shareholders of M/s Sunil Mantri Realty Ltd., which evidences the fact that the appellant/assessee company is not holding any shares of M/s Sunil Mantari Realty Ltd., such fact had also been accepted by the Ld AO at page of the assessment order . 20. The CIT(A), on the above finding of fact, deleted the addition as made. 21. Against this decision of the CIT(A), the departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
