TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as follows: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.38,29,086/- made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act by the Assessing Officer towards the receipt from M/s Neesa Leisure Limited. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,91,27,917/- made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act by the Assessing Officer towards the receipt from M/s Neesa Agritech Private Limited. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,23,804/- made u/s 43B of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 4. On the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt that Appellant is not a beneficial shareholder in above companies from whom loans have been received, which is not even disputed by AO, it is observed that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Ankitech Pvt. Limited 340 ITR 14 has held that expression "being a person who is a beneficial owner of shares" would be, in addition to shareholder, first being a registered shareholder of the Company, and only on those cases provisions of Section 2(22)(e) would be applicable. This decision was further upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3961 of 2013 dated 5th October, 2017 in the case of CIT V/s Madhur Housing & Development Company. The Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT VS Daisy Packers (P.) Ltd h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng aggregate of Rs.4.67 crores, addition was made for Rs.2.91 crores considering the fact that AO has also made addition of deemed dividend in other group cases of Neesa Group and accumulated profit to that extent was considered in other group cases. The appellant has contended that funds are received as reimbursement of expenses but there is nothing on record to prove such contention. Even these facts along with evidences were not submitted before AO. Considering the detailed discussion made in preceding para, addition made in appellant's case is deleted, as addition is required to be made in the case of Sanjay Gupta who is holding substantial shares in both the concerns. The finding given in preceding para would equally apply to these....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 2(22)(e) observing that Shri Sanjay Gupta is the shareholder, holding substantial shares in both companies and the addition is to be made in his hands. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that later Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Travel Services which referred the matter to the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Ankitech Pvt. Ltd. which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhur Housing And Development Company which requires reconsideration. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in deleting the addition made u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. 7. We have perused the ....