TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year 2004-05. The question before the Tribunal was whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order dated 26.02.2007 had erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 30 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer treating the said amount as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After hearing the counsel for the appellant / revenue, we are unable to agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial had been brought on record to suggest that what was explained by the assessee was incorrect. The Tribunal also noted the fact that the said amount of ₹ 30 lakhs had been given to the assessee on 27.06.2003 and as the deal did not materialize, the same was returned by the assessee shortly thereafter, i.e., on 04.07.2003. In view of the clear finding returned by the Tribunal that since t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
