TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Rajkot (in short "CIT(A)") relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13 against the assessment order dated 26.03.2015 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The solitary ground raised by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccepted by the assessee company from Entrack International Trading Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 10,58,50,000/-. The assessee claimed before the AO the loan is nothing but inter corporate deposit from the sister concern since the assessee cannot deposit these monies in bank deposits, when the sister concerns is badly in need of money. The AO rejected the contention of the assessee and treated the inter corpor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-requisite that the assessee company should be a registered shareholder of the lender company. Therefore, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) is not attracted. Thus, the AO erred in making addition under Section 2(22)(e) which is against the law. The assessee also relied upon the Jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case CIT vs. Daisy Packers Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2014) 220 taxmann 331 where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the Revenue is in appeal before us raising that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,58,50,000/- made by the AO under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue could not contravent that the assessee herein hold any shares in EIPL and also conceded that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked in the present case. Recording the both submissions....