2016 (7) TMI 1345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising the following question : "(a) Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 58,12,248/made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of assessee company under section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act? (b) Whether ITAT has correctly interpreted the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act?" 2. Having heard the l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0 lacs as on 31st March 1999 and it has advanced a loan to the assessee to the tune of Rs. 25 lacs. Whereas the assessee contended that he received deposit from Amigo Brushes Pvt. Ltd. and Daisy Packers Pvt. Ltd. was not a shareholder in Amigo Brushes Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer by his order dated 30th September 2004 rejected the claim of the assessee and treated the deposits as loan and conse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 14]. 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 dividend under Section 2(22)(e)of the Act. In view of this admitted position that assessee is not a shareholder in Amigo Brushes Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, the deposit received by the assessee of Rs. 25 lacs from Amigo Brus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X