TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : In this appeal filed by the assessee, it has raised four effective grounds. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, learned A.R. submitted that he was pressing only one ground relating to deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Necessary endorsement was made by the learned A.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumulated profit of ₹ 6,04,64,934/- as on 31.3.2008. Therefore, according to him, rigours of Section 2(22)(e) was attracted. He, therefore, considered the sum of ₹ 5,55,95,735/- as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. 3. Assessee s appeal before CIT(Appeals) did not meet with any success. Though assessee argued that it was not a shareholder in M/s GB Engineering Enterprises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship firm to be beneficial shareholder and loans taken by the partnership firm to be deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. According to him, by virtue of decisions of very same High Court in the case of CIT v. MCC Marketing (P) Ltd. (343 ITR 350), CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (340 ITR 14) and that of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Parle Plastics Ltd. (332 ITR 63), unless ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could be taxed only in the case of shareholder. It was held that the concern which was giving loans or advances to a company could not be treated as shareholder of the latter simply because a shareholder of the company had voting power of 10% or more in the said concern. In other words, Hon ble Delhi High Court upheld the decision of Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colours Pvt. Ltd. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
