2020 (8) TMI 821

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g for the assessee submitted that the issue that was considered by the Tribunal related to taxability of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The assessee company had taken a loan of Rs. 1,83,70,000/- from another company named M/s. Shree Hanuman Jute Mills Private Limited. The assessee herein is not a shareholder in the company which lent loan to the assessee. However, the above said loan of Rs. 1,83,70,000/- was assessed in the hands of the assessee as "deemed dividend" under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The shareholders of the assessee company are Shri Hemant Kumar Jalan holding 98% of the shares and Smt. Anushree Jalan holding 2% of the shares. 3. However in paragraph 2 of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons rendered by jurisdictional High Court is a mistake apparent from record. 6. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the Tribunal has however placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Gopalan & Sons (HUF) Vs. CIT (supra), which was rendered on different set of facts and hence the same is not applicable to the facts prevailing in the present case. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madhur Housing and Development Co. (2018) 401 ITR 152 (SC) has held in clear terms that the assessee company, not being share holder of the company which gave the loan, the loan, was not assessable as deemed dividend in the assessee company's hands. The Hon'ble ITAT has not considered ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madhur Housing and Development Co. (supra) (Dt.5.10.2017) was available on the domain when the impugned order of ITAT was passed. Admittedly, the said decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court was also not considered by the Tribunal while passing the order. It is the case of the learned Authorised Representative that the facts prevailing in the case of Gopalan & Sons Vs. CIT (supra) relate to loan given to a beneficial share holder, which is not the case available in this appeal. According to Ld A.R, the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhur Housing and Development Co. (supra) is applicable. Thus, we notice that the Tribunal has not examined applicabili....