TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 323 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Impact Containers (P) Ltd. (2014 (9) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) wherein held no loan or advance was granted to the assessee, since the amount in question had actually been defalcated and was not reflected in the book of account of the assessee. Even assuming that it was a dividend, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09. (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable in the case of assessee company without appreciating the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contradiction to the fact that the minimum paidup capital for any closely held company should be ₹ 1,00,000/? 2. Regarding question (i) : (a) Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly states that question (i) as framed by the Revenue stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee by the decision of this Court in Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
