2021 (4) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice through RAPD. We, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal on merits ex parte of the assessee after hearing the Ld. DR. 3. The Revenue has raised four grounds of appeal as under: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)- 1, Kolkata, erred deleting the addition of Rs. 14,52,00,000/- of the deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) as the assessee Company, a share holder of M/s Super Diamond Nirman (P) Ltd, a closely held Company, who granted loan to the assessee company 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case erred in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata, erred deleting the addition of Rs. 15,79,95,500/- as per provision ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ness where the lending of money was a substantial part of the business of the company and that due interest was paid by the assessee on the said loan. That even the assessee company was 100% subsidiary of another public limited company M/s Alpine Commercial Co. Ltd. 4.3 Considering the above submissions made by the assessee along with evidences furnished, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not applicable in the case of the assessee as the said loan was advanced to the shareholder in the ordinary course of business of lending of money by the said company. The ld. DR could not point out any defect in the said observations made by the ld. CIT(A). In view of this, there is no merit in this ground of Revenue. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se as the assessee company was subsidiary of another public limited company i.e. M/s Alpine Commercial Co. Ltd in which the public was substantially interested. The ld. CIT(A) considering the above submissions observed that since the assessee company was 100% subsidiary of M/s Alpine Commercial Co. Ltd. in which the public was substantially interested, therefore according to the provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B)(c), the assessee company being 100% of subsidiary of the said public limited company was also treated as a company in which public was substantially interested and that the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) were not attracted in the case of the assessee company. The Ld. DR could not bring out any defect in the order of the CIT(A) wa....