The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai v. Dhfl Venture Capital (I) Private Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1953 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus DHFL Venture Capital (I) Private Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Tejveer Singh for the appellant.Mr.Atul K Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 15[th] February 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2007-08, following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration. “a)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that deemed dividend can only be assessed in the hands of a shareholder and not in the hands of a concern, an interpretation that is contrary to a plain reading of the said section ?law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that deemed dividend can only be assessed in the hands of a shareholder and not in the hands of a concern, an interpretation that is contrary to a plain reading of the said section ? b)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the material facts that the shareholders of the lendor and lendee companies were common, thus enabling the AO to invoke provision of section 2(22)(e) ?”law, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the material facts that the shareholders of the lendor and lendee companies were common, thus enabling the AO to invoke provision of section 2(22)(e) ?” 2.Counsel for the parties state that the impugned order of the Tribunal has not considered the alternate finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) (page 32 of the appeal paper-book). In view of the above, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 27[th] July 2012 is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Tribunal to consider the alternate plea and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. 3.The appeal is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)