2016 (6) TMI 1225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amounts received as share application money by companies from companies in both of which the respondent assessee has beneficial interest is not loans and advances for the purposes of invoking section 2(22)(e) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that investment made in two distinct adjacent flats would qualify for exemption under section 54F without appreciating the fact that the said section provides exemption in respect of a residential property implying a single residential unit only ?" 3. Re : question (i)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial year was for commercial reasons and would not change the character of the share allotment money. Thus, allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee holding that the share application money received by the two companies from the other two companies (in all of which the respondent assessee had beneficial holding), cannot be treated as loan or deposit so as to warrant invoking of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. (c) On further appeal by the Revenue to the Tribunal, the impugned order of the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. It in fact placed reliance upon the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal at Mumbai in ITO v. Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 18....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to us to indicate that the Revenue has not accepted the above decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal. Further, no distinguishing features warranting a different view in the present case from that taken by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Mumbai Tribunal in Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Subhmangal Credit Capital (supra) is brought to our notice. Thus, there is no justification for the Revenue to urge a view contrary to that accepted by it in case of Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Subhmangal Credit Capital (supra). Further, we find that on similar facts, the Delhi High Court and Madras High Court in Sumit Chopra (supra) and Rugmini Ram Ragav (supra) has also taken a view that the share application money cannot....