TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved in this appeal. He drew our attention to an earlier decision of this Court by a coordinate Bench in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Baljit Securities Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (6) TMI 793 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT) wherein held that there are common shareholders who held shares both in Respondent Assessee Company and M/s Rajrani Exports Private Limited [lender company]. While the four shareholders named above ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r corporate entity, M/s. Naresh Kumar Co. (P) Ltd. and one individual was common shareholder in both the companies, holding 65% shares in M/s. Naresh Kumar Co. (P) Ltd. 50% in the assessee company. On this factual background, the assessing officer held that the aforesaid sum was to be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee and taxed accordingly. The assessee was successful bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was satisfied in this case? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case conclusion arrived at by the Ld. Tribunal in granting the aforesaid relief to the assessee, is perverse? According to him, the assessee s case squarely comes within the ambit of deemed dividend as defined in section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
