2015 (5) TMI 1086

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsidiary company of Rs. 43,56,279/-as deemed dividends ujs.2(22)(e) of the Act, added back by the AO"x. 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that Doubledot Finance Ltd- a company listed in Vadodara Stock Exchange is a company in which the public are substantially interested u/s.2(18)(b)(c) of the Act, in which 59.8% of the equity share capital is held by the assessee company". 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is contrary to law and consequently merits to be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 2. During the year under consideration the assessee has obtained loan of Rs. 43,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he above submissions of Ld. AR. For the sake of completeness the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced below: "This appeal filed by the Revenue on 5.3.2012 is against the order of the CIT (A)-8, Mumbai dated 26.12.2011 for the assessment year 2008-2009. 2. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under:  "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 1,85,02,274/- u/s 2(22)(e) on account of deemed divided. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the CIT (A) is contrary to law to be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. iv. The CBDT circular 372 of 1983 clearly stated that a subsidiary of a company which is a listed company or a wholly owned subsidiary of such subsidiary company referred to earlier are both "Companies in which the public are substantially interested. v. This view is roe than amply reinforced by the cases cited by the appellant and discussed earlier in the order. vi. It is not envisaged by law that only wholly owned subsidiary of a Listed Company shall be company in which the public are substantially interested. vii. If one were to carefully consider the totality of the provision as contained in section 2(18)(B), it is abundantly clear that the stipulation of "Whol....