CIT Vs. MADHU GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following 9 appeals raise common question of law i.e. whether interest on the interest free loans obtained from the Company in which either the assessee or his/her spouse was a Director, is a perquisite and an income of the assessee in terms of Section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The appeals are: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1187_TLP&H0_2011s1.htm</FRM>

(2.) ALL the appeals are taken up together, as the questions of law in all these cases are identical. However, for the facility of reference, the facts and the question of law are being taken up from ITA No.95 of 2000. The question of law reads under:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the assessee has argued that the revenue has not filed any further appeal against the order passed in Varinder Gupta's case (supra) relied upon by the Tribunal, therefore, the revenue cannot be permitted to dispute the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the revenue submitted that as the tax effect was not substantial in the said case, therefore, appeal was not filed. Be as it may, we have examined the question raised.