TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teek Gupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Ghaziabad for assessment year 2010-11. Although the assessee has raised as many as three grounds in the appeal before us, at the time of hearing, the Ld. AR for the assessee submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eemed dividend. The Assessing Officer took the amount of advance received by the assessee company from another incorporated company M/s Dayal Steels Pvt. Ltd. and assessed the amount of advance as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company on the ground that both the companies had a common shareholding pattern and Mrs. Rani Chawdhari had substantial interest in both the companies. On app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the accounts of the trade transactions held between the two companies. It was submitted that since the assessee company was not a shareholder of M/s Dayal Steels Pvt. Ltd., the impugned addition could not have been made. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. reported in 340 ITR 14 (Del) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the assessee company was not a shareholder in M/s Dayal Steels Pvt. Ltd. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P) Ltd. (supra). We also note that this judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was later followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. A.R. Magnetics Pvt....