TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition made on account of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in ignoring the fact that the investment reflected in the books of the company will not change the character of investments made in the name of the Director. Sh. Adarsh Kapoor has invested that amount in his own name thereby satisfying all the provisions of section 2(22)(e). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in ignoring the fact that section 2(22)(e) is a deeming provision and creates a fiction bringing in amounts paid otherwise than as dividends, into the net of dividends. Section 2(22)(e) must, therefore, be given a strict interpretation. &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Growth / Vision Fund of Rs. 12,00,000/-. - Though the above stated investments were made in the name of Mr. Adarsh Kapur but the real and beneficial owner of these investments was the Company only. - These investments were done through a resolution passed by the Company (Copy of the resolution attached.) - These investments are reflected in the books of the Company (Copy of Ledger Accounts attached.) - The beneficial owner of these investments was the company only. - Only Company has the exclusive rights on the investments. Only company can sell or otherwise deal with the investments. The above stated transactions are not for the benefit of the concerned shareholder/ director and as stated above the money has been investe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed in this regard was also submitted. 4.1 Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the assessee's reply. He observed that the Minutes Book of the Directors' Meeting were not produced before him. He further did not agree with the contention of the assessee that there were certain conditions laid down for investing in the said scheme which the company failed to fulfill. In Assessing Officer's view the Company could have invested in its own name after completing these formalities. Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act and added the same of Rs. 12,85,000/- to the income of the assessee. 5. Upon assessee's appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) noted that assessee was not pressing for adjudica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....director of the Company, clearly state that the appellant was being authorized to make investment on behalf of the company. The resolution filed initially, is stated to be undated on account of an error. iii) As per the powers vested in the Commissioner (Appeals) u/s. 250(4) of the Act, the appellant was required to produce the copy of the minutes book of the company and the resolution at (ii) above finds place in the minutes book. Thus the genuineness of the said resolution stands established. iv) The resolution of the Board of Directors of the company, authorizing the appellant to make investment in units of the mutual fund on its behalf, clearly stipulates that this investment is on behalf of the Company. The investment in mutual f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sal for the assessee to make investment on behalf of Nevco Engineers Pvt. Ltd. was duly approved by the Board of Directors of the said company. The reasons for the Company not being able to make the investment in its name was that at that point of time, the Company did not meet the requirement of Know Your Customer (KYC) Scheme (for Money Laundering measures) and also did not have a PAN card which were mandatory for the purpose of applying of units of mutual funds. The Assessing Officer's has given the reasoning for not accepting these submissions on the ground that Company could have waited to complete the formalities before the making the investment. We find that this view of the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. It was on account of ....