TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing income of Rs. 34,10,890/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has received an amount of Rs. 4,21,40,118/- from M/s. Iris Associates Pvt. Ltd. From the various details furnished by the assessee he observed that the share holding ratio of the assessee company and M/s. Iris Associates Pvt. Ltd are as under :- S. NO. NAME OF SHARE HOLDER AAKAR DESIGN CONSULTANTS PVT LTD IRIS ASSOCIATES PVT LTD 1. GURPREET SINGH 50% 53.10% 2. SANCHITA SINGH 50% 46.90% 3. He further observed that the accumulated profit of M/s. Iris Associates Pvt. Ltd as on 31.03.2012 is Rs. 4,21,40,118/-. He therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the provisions of section 2(22)(e) should not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 2 (22) (e) of the Act. While doing so, he observed that the assessee company is not holding any shares in M/s. IRIS Associates (P) Ltd. Similarly M/s. IRIS Associates is not holding any shares in the assessee company. According to Ld. CIT (A) the deeming provision of dividend is applicable only on the registered shareholders. Since, none of the companies are holding shares in each other company, therefore, deemed dividend cannot be assessed in the hands of the person who is not a shareholder. He, therefore, held that application of the provision of Section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee company is not justified. He further noted that advance was received from M/s Iris Associates ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that since the Directors of both the companies are common and hold substantial interest in both the companies which is more than 10% of voting power, therefore, the provisions of section 2 (22) (e) are clearly applicable in the instant case. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand while supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madhur Housing Development Company has upheld the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court holding that although there were persons having substantial interest in the assessee company and the company which gave the loan, the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holding in both the companies, the Assessing Officer, invoking the provisions of section 2(22) (e) of the Act treated an account of Rs. 4,21,40,118/- as deemed dividend under section 2 (22) (e) of the IT Act. We find the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the above addition on the ground that assessee is not a shareholder in M/s. IRIS Associates Pvt. Ltd and the money was received in normal course of business and therefore, outside the purview of section 2 (22) (e) of the Act. A perusal of the grounds raised by the revenue shows that the revenue has not challaneged the finding given by the CIT(A) that the money received was in normal course of business and therefore, not covered by the section 2 (22) (e) of the IT Act. We, therefore, uphold the order of t....