2019 (8) TMI 1869

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....law for our consideration:­ (a) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO, on account of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961 even though the assessee had substantial interest in the associated companies where in the assessee had more than 20% shareholding? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in ignoring the fact that the ledger confirmation account of the transactions between the two entities in which the assessee had substantial shareholdings clearly indicated that it was not a single transaction of a deposit bei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ount of Rs.4.48 Crore given by M/s. ADJPL to M/s. DJPL was not a loan but an advance for purchase of property. This was on the basis of evidence viz. a copy of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 9th May, 2008, executed between both the parties for sale of the property and also a cheque dated 9th May, 2008 being the advance for the above purchase. Thus, holding that the amount of Rs.4.48 Crores is not a loan/ advance given by M/s. ADJPL to M/s. DJPL but it was an advance for purchase of property. Thus, holding that provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was not applicable while allowing the appeal; (iii) Being aggrieved with order dated 20th March, 2015, the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the above finding of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the amount of Rs.4.48 Crores is not a loan and/or advance, is perverse. In support, our attention is drawn to the fact that the Assessment Order rejected the Respondent's submission that confirmation filed by M/s. DJPL was that the amount was a loan taken by M/s. DJPL from M/s. ADJPL. Thus, it submitted that this issue requires admissions. (iii) We find that this issue was duly considered by the CIT(A) when he called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer did not dispute the fact that the notarized of MoU dated 9th May, 2008 was for sale/ purchases of office premises. This document was also produced before the Assessing Off....