2012 (2) TMI 526

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hese two appeals by the Revenue impugn a common order dated 6.5.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) in the case of M/s. International Land Development Pvt. Ltd. The appeals relate to assessment year 2005-06 and 2007-08. The Assessing Officer held that Section 2(22)(e) was applicable to the following payments:-  Assessment Year 2005-06  Amounts ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondent-assessee inter alia holding that M/s. ALM Infotech City (P) Ltd. and International Land Developer Ltd. were not shareholders of the respondent-assessee and therefore Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was not applicable. With regard to Alimuddin and Goldman Malls Pvt. Ltd. it was observed that both of them were shareholders of the respondent company but the payments made to them were for business ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) cannot be invoked because the respondent assessee and M/s. ALM Infotech City (P) Ltd. and International Land Developers Ltd., have common shareholders. Dividend is paid to shareholders and M/s. ALM Infotech City (P) Ltd. and International Land Developers Ltd. are not shareholders of the respondent assessee. We may also note that the tribunal has held that the payments made to M/s. ILD Trade Cent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts were for business exigencies/purpose is incorrect and therefore these payments should be treated as deemed dividend. We are not inclined to accept the said contention. In the present case the Assessing Officer has submitted a remand report to the CIT (Appeals). In their remand reports the Assessing Officer had stated as under:- The assessee has filed the copy of agreements and memorandum of ....