TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee and failing to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee, challenging the extraneous and extrajurisdictional findings/observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the following observations/findings in the assessment order were in total disregard of appellant's factual and legal submissions, were erroneous, extraneous, unsubstantiated, false, baseless and founded on conjectures and surmises, and therefore ought to have been set aside by the Ld.CIT(A). 2.1. That the assessing officer erred in holding that shares ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment order pertaining to taxation of alleged benefit in the hands of the alleged beneficiary under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act, besides being beyond jurisdiction, are capricious and violative of principles of natural justice and fair play. 3. The assessee is an investment company. Return of income was electronically filed on 29/09/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 2,75,836/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company has claimed to receive shares of various companies from various companies as gift without paying any consideration. The details of which are as under:- S. NO. Donor No. of Shares Name of the companies whose equity shares has been gifted 1 M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to be sham. 1.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making/returning the aforesaid extraneous observations/findings, despite accepting that the transaction of receipt of shares as gift does not result in any tax incidence in the hands of the appellant. 1.3. That the assessing officer exceeded his jurisdiction in observing that the transaction of receipt of shares, was taxable in the hands of the beneficiary under section 2(24)(iv) of the income tax Act, 1961 (the Act)." The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 18 days in the present appeal and applications seeking condonation of delay is filed by the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR did not obje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to be taxable under section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in the hands of Mrs. Arti Jindal alleged to be the beneficiary, by lifting the corporate veil, without providing any cogent reasons, and without appreciating that the alleged beneficiary never obtained any benefit from this transaction at any time. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessing officer erred in holding that the transaction of gift of shares held by Mrs. Arti Jindal in the assessee company to M/s PRJ Holding Private Trust was not valid and was a sham and void transaction which was undertaken to avoid tax. The Ld. AR submitted that the findings in the assessment order pertaining to taxation of alleged benefit in the hands of the alleged beneficiary under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iv) the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, obtained from a company either by a director or by a person who has a substantial interest in the company, or by a relative of the director or such person, and any sum paid by any such company in respect of any obligation which, but for such payment, would have been payable by the director or other person aforesaid; ........................" The words benefit and perquisite are used in this clause of sub-section (24) to Section 2. Whether gifting shares amounts any benefit or perquisite has to be looked into. In the present case at one point the Assessing Officer has stated that there is benefit to assessee company but at the same time state....