JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal registered as ITAT No.170 of 2015 is against a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “C” Kolkata dated 10th March, 2015 for the assessment year 2005-06 upholding the assessee’s stand that a sum of Rs.3,49,44,070/- ought not to be added to its income for taxing purpose. The Assessing Officer had found that the assessee had received the said sum as interest free loan from another corporate entity, M/s. Pataka Industries (P) Ltd. and both the assessee and said Pataka Industries (P) Ltd had an individual as common shareholder, holding 24% shares in the latter and 23.8% in the assessee. On this factual background, the assessing officer held that the aforesaid sum was to be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee and taxed accordingly. In the other appeal, registered as ITAT No.9 of 2017 pertaining to the same assessee for the assessment year 2010-11, the assessing officer has taken the same stand in a situation involving the same two corporate entities and the individual. The assessee was successful before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in respect of both the assessment years. The CIT (A) as the first appellate authority found in favour of the assessee on the basis of a decision of the Tribunal itself in ITA No.533/Kol/2011. Mr. Ghosal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue sought to sustain the order of the assessing officer and prayed for admission of the appeal on the following suggested questions : (I) Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances admittedly the assessee company and Pataka Industries Limited had one common share holder i.e. Mr. Abul Kalam and he was holding 20% shares in M/s. Pataka Industries Private Ltd. ( more than 10% ) and he was holding 23.8% (i.e. more than 20%) shares in the assessee company, therefore condition laid down in the second limb of section 2(22)(e) are fulfilled which has been totally overlooked by the CIT(A) and also by the ITAT and as such the entire finding is perverse and not tenable in law ? (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Tribunal had erred in concurring with the decision of the CIT(A) and thereby differing with the view of the assessing officer in holding that section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable to the case of the respondent assessee for the AY 2005-06? (III) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. ITAT was not justified in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of the sum made under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of deemed dividend in view of the fact that loans were taken from M/s. Pataka Industries (P) Limited by the respondent assessee where there is one common shareholder having more than 20% of shareholdings and satisfying the condition stipulated in the second limb of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act? (IV) Whether the decision of the Tribunal is perverse and otherwise unsustainable in the eye of law ? 2. Mr. Ghosal’s submission is that the assessee’s case squarely comes within the ambit of deemed dividend as specified in section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Argument of Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee is that the point is covered in favour of the assessee and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. He has drawn our attention to an unreported decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the assessee’s own case, decided on 21st August, 2014 in ITAT No. 122 of 2014. This judgment was delivered relying upon an earlier decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Baljit Securities Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT No.74 of 2013) decided on 24th June, 2013. This Court has followed that authority in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kolkata Vs. Rungta Properties (P.) Ltd. reported in 2017[249] Taxman 18. The point suggested by the Revenue for admission, we find, is squarely covered by the aforesaid authorities in favour of the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also found this issue in favour of the assessee in an unreported judgment relied on by Mr. Khaitan in the case of C.I.T., Delhi-II Vs. Madhur Housing and Development Company (in Civil Appeal No.3961 of 2013) decided on 5th October, 2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also found this issue in favour of the assessee in an unreported judgment relied on by Mr. Khaitan in the case of C.I.T., Delhi-II Vs. Madhur Housing and Development Company (in Civil Appeal No.3961 of 2013) decided on 5th October, 2017. We do not find any substantial question of law to be involved in these appeals. The appeals and the stay petitions are accordingly dismissed, without any order as to costs.