Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 651/2018
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashook K. Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department with Mr. Aditya and Mr. Amar, Panwar, Advocates.
versus
CARGILL INDIA PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent Through: Mr. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh and Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
O R D E R %
11.09.2018
CM No. 22926/2018 Delay of 30 days in refiling of appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application. The application is disposed of. CM No. 22927/2018 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. ITA 651/2018 Contention of the Revenue is that loan given by M/s Cargill Global Trading India Private Limited to the respondent-assessee namely M/s Cargill India Private Limited should be treated as “deemed dividend” under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act,1961 is misconceived.
It is an accepted and admitted position that M/s Cargill Global Trading India Private Limited is one step down subsidiary of M/s Cargill Inc USA. The respondent-assessee is a two step down subsidiary of M/s Cargill Ink USA. The step up subsidiary(ies) of M/s Cargill Global Trading India Private Limited and M/s Cargill India Private Limited are different and not common. It is not possible to accept the contention that the respondent- assessee should be treated as a shareholder or beneficial owner of the shares in M/s Cargill Global Trading India Private Limited. 3. In these circumstances, we do not think that the loan given by M/s Cargill Global Trading India Private Limited can be treated as “deemed dividend” paid to the respondent-assessee. 4. The appeal has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J. SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 MR