Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA 660/2015
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shikhar Garg, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing counsel.
ITA 660/2015
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shikhar Garg, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing counsel.
VERSUS
KAY KAY ROYAL APARTMENTS PVT. LTD .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate.
Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate.
WITH
ITA 661/2015
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 ..... Appellant
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 ..... Appellant
VERSUS
KAY KAY BUILD WORTH PVT. LTD Respondent
WITH
ITA 662/2015
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 .....Appellant
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 .....Appellant
VERSUS
KAY KAY APARTMENTS PVT. LTD Respondent ITA Nos.660, 661, 662 and 663/2015 Page lof 4
2015:DHC:11440-DB r.II, ITA 663/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 ..... Appellant
2015:DHC:11440-DB r.II, ITA 663/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 ..... Appellant
VERSUS
KAY KAY EXECUTIVE APARTMENTS PVT. LTD .....Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
15.09.2015 CM APPL 17252,17253 and17254/2015 (for exemption
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
ITA Nos. 660 661, 662 and 663/2015 These are four appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') directed against the common impugned order dated 161h
January 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA
Nos. 3079 to 3082/De1I2009, all pertaining to the Assessment Year ('AY')
2006-07.
The common question involved in these appeals is whether the ITAT was
ITA Nos.660, 661, 662 and 663/2015 correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
['CIT-(A)'] deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') under
Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act by treating the amount given as loan to the
Assessee as deemed dividend.
Since the facts in these appeals are more or less similar, and the same questions arise for consideration, the facts in ITA 660/2015 are set out illustratively. The Respondent-Assessee filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 59,213. On scrutiny of the case, a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued to the Respondent-Assessee. The Assessing Officer ('AO') observed that the Respondent had received an unsecured loan in the sum of Rs.
1.25 crores from Kohli Housing & Development Private Limited ('KHDPL').
It was further noticed that KHDPL had given loans likewise to other sister concerns of the Kohli Group (the Assessees in the other appeals). Since both the Assessee company and KHDPL were having Mr. Sudershan Kohli and Mrs. Kum Kum Kohli as common shareholders having 50% share each, it was concluded by the AO that the loan amount was deemed dividend under Section
2 (22) (e) of the Act. A similar view was taken by the AO in the other cases of the sister concerns.
The contention of the Assessee that at the time of advancement of loan by
ITA Nos.660, 661, 662 and 663/2015 KHIDPL, the Assessee or the sister concerns were not shareholders in any of the
Kohli Group of companies and that there were no common shareholders, including Sudharshan Kohli and Kum Kum Kohli, was accepted by the CIT
(A) who examined the facts in great detail. The finding of the CIT (A) that in each of the four cases, the primary condition for attracting Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act stands unfulfilled has been concurred with by the ITAT. The above findings which have turned on facts have not been shown to be perverse.
The Court finds that no substantial question of law arises for determination in the present appeals.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed S.MURALIDHAR, J
~ - VIBHU BAKIIRU, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 Rk ITA Nos.660, 661, 662 and 663/2015 Page4of4
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
15.09.2015 CM APPL 17252,17253 and17254/2015 (for exemption
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
ITA Nos. 660 661, 662 and 663/2015 These are four appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') directed against the common impugned order dated 161h
January 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA
Nos. 3079 to 3082/De1I2009, all pertaining to the Assessment Year ('AY')
2006-07.
The common question involved in these appeals is whether the ITAT was
ITA Nos.660, 661, 662 and 663/2015 correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
['CIT-(A)'] deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') under
Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act by treating the amount given as loan to the
Assessee as deemed dividend.
Since the facts in these appeals are more or less similar, and the same questions arise for consideration, the facts in ITA 660/2015 are set out illustratively. The Respondent-Assessee filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 59,213. On scrutiny of the case, a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued to the Respondent-Assessee. The Assessing Officer ('AO') observed that the Respondent had received an unsecured loan in the sum of Rs.
1.25 crores from Kohli Housing & Development Private Limited ('KHDPL').
It was further noticed that KHDPL had given loans likewise to other sister concerns of the Kohli Group (the Assessees in the other appeals). Since both the Assessee company and KHDPL were having Mr. Sudershan Kohli and Mrs. Kum Kum Kohli as common shareholders having 50% share each, it was concluded by the AO that the loan amount was deemed dividend under Section
2 (22) (e) of the Act. A similar view was taken by the AO in the other cases of the sister concerns.
The contention of the Assessee that at the time of advancement of loan by
ITA Nos.660, 661, 662 and 663/2015 KHIDPL, the Assessee or the sister concerns were not shareholders in any of the
Kohli Group of companies and that there were no common shareholders, including Sudharshan Kohli and Kum Kum Kohli, was accepted by the CIT
(A) who examined the facts in great detail. The finding of the CIT (A) that in each of the four cases, the primary condition for attracting Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act stands unfulfilled has been concurred with by the ITAT. The above findings which have turned on facts have not been shown to be perverse.
The Court finds that no substantial question of law arises for determination in the present appeals.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed S.MURALIDHAR, J
~ - VIBHU BAKIIRU, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 Rk ITA Nos.660, 661, 662 and 663/2015 Page4of4
JUDGMENT