COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. VIR VIKRAM VAID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 9th September, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Tribunal whereby the tribunal negated the Appellant's claim that the Respondent was beneficiary of certain amounts by way of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) by virtue of certain expenses incurred on construction/renovation of the premises owned by the Respondent and let out by the Respondent to a limited Company of which the Respondent was a majority share holder.

(2.) The question of law raised by the Respondent is whether the tribunal had erred in directing/concluding that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not attracted in the case of the Respondent in view of the Appellant's contention that the expenditure made by the private limited Company of the Respondent in which the Respondent - assessee is a majority share holder and that the expenditure in fact was made for benefit of the Respondent - assessee himself.

(3.) A few facts may be adverted to : The Respondent assessee holds 76.26% of equity shares of Offshore Hookup and Construction Services Pvt. Ltd. ("the Company"). He is also an Executive Director of the Company. In his personal capacity he is the owner of certain premises and was carrying on business as proprietor of Offshore International Services. It seems that over a period of time the Respondent ceased carrying on business of the propriety concern and he let out the premises to the Company.