9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2013-14. 2. The above appeal has been admitted on 10.6.2019 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper by applying the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madhur Housing and Development Company which had upheld the decision of the Delhi High court in the case of Anikitech P Ltd dealt with an issue relating to the first condition that the person should be a shareholder under Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act, but in the present case the issue relates to usage relating to beneficial owner of the shares which is the 2nd condition enunciated in Sec.2(22)(e) for its applicability? And (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in applying the decision of the Anikitech P Ltd. of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by that, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal by the impugned order. Thus, the Revenue is before us. 6. The question, which would fall for consideration is as to whether the Assessing Officer was right in holding that the only exclusion provided by the Statute under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was in the case of money lending business and the payments that are made in the ordinary course of business, as, for doing money lending business, a person is required to obtain a licence from the Reserve Bank of India or whether it is a non banking financial company. 7. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee was not one such company falling under anyone of the categories. Accordingly, the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT [reported in (2017) 145 DR 0289 (SC)]; (ii) Miss.P.Sarada Vs. CIT [reported in [1998] 229 ITR 444 (SC)]; (iii) CIT Vs. National Travel Services [reported in (2012) 347 ITR 0305]; and (iv) National Travel Services Vs. CIT, [reported in (2018) 401 ITR 0154 (SC)], in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court doubted the correctness of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Ankitech Pvt. Lt. [reported in (2012) 340 ITR 0014]. 10. In the said decision, after considering the rival submissions, we dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue by returning the following findings : "11. Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, which defines dividend, an inclusive definition, includes any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
