AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned CIT (A) justified in deleting addition made u/s 2(22)(e) holding that the assessee was not holding shares in SCDPL (Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Private Limited) at the time of loan/ advance given by Kumar Urban Developers (KUDL)? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) justified in relying solely on the letter of company secretary stating that the share holding pattern was changed during middle of year? 3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) justified in allowing the claim of the assessee without verification of change of share holding pattern without filing of the same with ROC (Registrar of Company)? 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to the Assessing Officer, the respondent-assessee holds 50% of shares of M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and also was holding 45% of shares in M/s. Kumar Urban Developers Ltd.. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that since the respondent-assessee was common shareholder in both the companies holding more than 10% of shares, the loan given by M/s. Kumar Urban Developers Ltd. to M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. constitutes a deemed dividend within the ambit of provisions of section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the respondentassessee. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the respondent-assessee contended that the advance given by M/s. Kumar Urban Developers Ltd. to M/s. Shatrunjay Constr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 (Delhi) held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) have no application to the facts of case. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have come to the conclusion that as on the relevant date i.e. date of advance made by M/s. Kumar Urban Developers Ltd. to M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. that the appellant is not shareholder in M/s. Shatrunjay Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. merely based on the letter issued by Company Secretary of the said company. He further submits that it is merely an afterthought that the respondent-assessee took the plea that the he is not shareholder in the said company. 7. ....