TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s Alpine Commercial Co. Ltd. in which the public was substantially interested, therefore according to the provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B)(c), the assessee company being 100% of subsidiary of the said public limited company was also treated as a company in which public was substantially interested and that the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) were not attracted in the case of the assessee company. DR could not bring out any defect in the order of the CIT(A) warranting our interference. The findings of the CIT(A) on this issue are upheld. Addition u/s 14A on account of expenditure incurred for earning of tax exempt income - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while deleting the aforesaid addition has observed that the assessee during the year did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)- 1, Kolkata, erred deleting the addition of ₹ 14,52,00,000/- of the deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) as the assessee Company, a share holder of M/s Super Diamond Nirman (P) Ltd, a closely held Company, who granted loan to the assessee company 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case erred in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata, erred deleting the addition of ₹ 15,79,95,500/- as per provision u/s 56(2)(viia) which is squarely applicable to the assessee Company purchased shares of M/s Super Diamond Nirman (P) Ltd below the fare market value. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata, erred deleting the addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the above submissions made by the assessee along with evidences furnished, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not applicable in the case of the assessee as the said loan was advanced to the shareholder in the ordinary course of business of lending of money by the said company. The ld. DR could not point out any defect in the said observations made by the ld. CIT(A). In view of this, there is no merit in this ground of Revenue. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue are accordingly upheld. 5. Ground No.2 - The Revenue has contested the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act. 5.1 The brief facts relevant to the issue are that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idiary of M/s Alpine Commercial Co. Ltd. in which the public was substantially interested, therefore according to the provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B)(c), the assessee company being 100% of subsidiary of the said public limited company was also treated as a company in which public was substantially interested and that the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) were not attracted in the case of the assessee company. The Ld. DR could not bring out any defect in the order of the CIT(A) warranting our interference. The findings of the CIT(A) on this issue are upheld. 6. Ground No.3 - Vide Ground No.3, the Department has agitated the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 9,70,710/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
