|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 501 to 520 of 1125 Records
-
2020 (11) TMI 625
Invitation of bids for tender - qouting of double price - Section 53 B of the Competition Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The CCI has found that the Appellant failed to define or suggest relevant market. It found it is neither necessary nor feasible to delineate the relevant market in the absence of requisite data on record particularly in the light of market emerging out of RSDOs reply which CCI received. The CCI deciphered that apart from the Opposite Party (Respondent No. 2) there are at least four other major global players in the market for rolling stock mounted GPR for Ballast Inspection in India. The Order as reproduced names of the other players.
The Appellant is trying to put the burden on CCI to find out the relevant market instead of itself defining or suggesting relevant market with prima facie material. Apart from this, the order of CCI shows that there are other players available in the market. There is no material shown that the Appellant had approached the other players - no case is made out to entertain the Appeal.
The Appeal is dismissed without admitting the same.
-
2020 (11) TMI 624
Works Contract Service - exemption under Sl. No. 12(a)/12A of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 - erection, commissioning and installation of transmission lines for various Government companies / corporations - service tax on the reimbursement of amount towards crop compensation, right of way, from the service recipient, being incidental to the works contract executed - Difference of Opinion.
HELD THAT:- In view of difference of opinion, the following question(s) arise for consideration.
1. Whether the view of Member (Judicial) is correct, holding that within the extended meaning of Article 243W, read with 12th Schedule of the Constitution, ‘Transmission and Distribution of Electricity’ is included;
Or
as held by learned Member (Technical) that ‘Transmission and Distribution of Electricity’ is not included in Article 243W read with 12th Schedule of the Constitution?
The Registry is directed to place the records before Hon’ble President for appointment of learned third Member to give opinion on the point(s) of difference.
-
2020 (11) TMI 623
Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner(Appeals) has not decided the case on merits, but has dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After filing appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant has deposited an amount of ₹ 10,00,000/-, which is sufficient to hear their appeal on merits.
The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to learned Commissioner(Appeals) for deciding the case on merits, without insisting on any further pre-deposit - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (11) TMI 622
Taxable Service or not - payment of remuneration in the nature and form of commission based on percentage of profit to whole time directors - reverse charge mechanism (RCM) - demand of service tax on fixed part as well as the variable pay - benefit of N/N. 30/2012-S.T., dated 20th June 2012 - It is the case of the Department that the said remuneration paid to the Directors would constitute ‘service’ liable to service tax in the hands of appellant assessee under reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- Section 2(94) of Companies Act, 2013, duly defines ‘whole-time director’ to include a director in the whole-time employment of the company. A whole-time Director refers to a Director who has been in employment of the company on a full-time basis and is also entitled to receive remuneration. The certificate issued by the company secretory states that the remuneration is given in various form as allowed under the Companies act, 2013.
The whole-time Director is essentially an employee of the Company and accordingly, whatever remuneration is being paid in conformity with the provisions of the Companies Act, is pursuant to employer-employee relationship and the mere fact that the whole-time Director is compensated by way of variable pay will not in any manner alter or dilute the position of employer-employee status between the company assessee and the whole-time Director - thus, when the very provisions of the Companies Act make whole-time director (as also in capacity of key managerial personnel) responsible for any default/offences, it leads to the conclusion that those directors are employees of the assessee company.
Since demand of service tax is set aside, penalty and interest are also not sustainable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (11) TMI 621
CENVAT Credit - proper invoices or not - validity of invoices/ bills issued to their office which is unregistered - requirement of Central Excise Registration or ISD Registration for availing CENVAT credit on the invoices issued on a different address - rule 4A of the 1994 Rules read with rule 9 of the 2004 Rules.
HELD THAT:- Once the requirement of rule 4A of the 1994 Rules and rule 9 of the 2004 Rules are satisfied, the benefit of CENVAT credit could not have been demanded. Thus, the Commissioner was not justified in denying the benefit of CENVAT credit on the unregistered premises.
The Commissioner has further held that the benefit of CENVAT credit for services received by the Appellant on the strength of invoices addressed to another unit is not admissible as the Appellant failed to take Central Registration or ISD Registration to avail and distribute the CENVAT credit - This finding of the Commissioner is also not correct. There is no law that prescribes that the only way to distribute CENVAT credit is registering as an ISD.
It has also contended by learned Counsel for the Appellant that no service tax was payable in respect of services imported prior to April 18, 2006. In this connection it has been pointed out that demand on ₹ 7038 was confirmed in respect of services imported from M/s P L Design Company Limited during the period 2005-06. The amount of service tax has been paid by the Appellant and it has also been appropriated in the impugned order. It is, therefore, not necessary to decide this issue.
Except for the demand of ₹ 7038/- that has been appropriated, the remaining demands confirmed by the Commissioner in the impugned order are set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (11) TMI 620
Recovery of amounts from Bank Guarantees - Whether respondent no. 1 is in order in invoking Bank Guarantees when O.M. dated 12.04.2017 (EXHIBIT A5), provides time period for Provisional Mega Projects, for furnishing Final Mega Certificates to the Tax authorities to 120 months, viz. by which validity is available upto 2021, for the applicant to avail benefit of exemption from payment of customs duty? - HELD THAT:- We agree with the contention of the applicant as regards the issue as the Corporate Debtor was given time to submit Final Mega Power Project Certificate within the period of 120 months and in the instant case the Corporate Debtor has imported machinery in the year 2011 and it enjoys benefit of exemption from payment of customs duty for 120 months till 2021. We therefore, have no hesitation in accepting the contention of the applicant that respondent no. 1 is estopped from recovering any amounts whatsoever upto the said period of 120 months from the date of import. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is answered in affirmative. Respondent no. 1 cannot invoke Bank Guarantee before expiry of 120 months from the date of import.
Whether the impugned Bank Guarantees can be termed as PBGs and are exempted from the moratorium under section 14(a)(1) of the IBC as amended by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020? - HELD THAT:- The important question to decide is whether the impugned Bank Guarantees issued by Corporate Debtor are PBGs or NBGs. When we go into the purpose for which the impugned Bank Guarantees are issued, we understand that these were issued for availing the benefits of exemption from payment of customs duty. Even though the underlying action is to furnish final Mega Power Project Status Certificate in time, then only this exemption is available to the Corporate Debtor. The basic object of this Bank Guarantee is to avail exemption only, not for completion of the project. Therefore, these Bank Guarantees cannot be termed as PBG. These can be termed as NBGs only. As such these guarantees are covered under security interest under section 14(1)(c) of the Code, and not under section 14(3)(b) of the Code, which was amended by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018.
The invocation of Bank Guarantee in question will result in decreasing value of the Corporate Debtor and it dissuades participation of prospective applicants from submitting their bids and increase cost of power as there will be substantial impact on the capital cost of the project - issue is answered that the impugned Bank Guarantees are NBGs and are covered by rigor of moratorium under section 14 of the Code.
Whether it is in order for respondent no. 1 to invoke Bank Guarantees when, respondent no. 1 has filed its claim with the Resolution Professional for the amount due from the Corporate Debtor for which these Bank Guarantees are issued? - HELD THAT:- As on one hand respondent no. 1 has filed its claim with Resolution Professional for consideration and on the other hand respondent no. 1 tried to invoke Bank Guarantee to recover its dues, thereby putting itself on a higher pedestal than other creditors. The objective of the Code emphasizes on revival and resolution of the Corporate Debtor in a time bound manner while aiming for optimization of value of assets keeping in view the interest of all stakeholders. By indulging in the above act, respondent no. 1 has attempted to better its position and to place itself on a higher pedestal than the other creditors of the same class. Therefore, we are of the view that respondent no. 1 has already filed its claim with the RP, invoking Bank Guarantees, which is not in the spirit of the IBC, viz. maximization of value of assess of the Corporate Debtor and protection of interest of all the stakeholders.
-
2020 (11) TMI 619
Valuation - inclusion of balance amount which is in the nature of Travelling Expenses and Boarding Expenses - reimbursable expenses or not - HELD THAT:- The demand is made on the amount that has been incurred by the appellant for travelling as well as lodging expenses. These are nothing but reimbursable expenses and the appellant has paid service on Audit Fee received as consideration for the service rendered - Demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (11) TMI 618
Revision u/ 263 - A.O. default in allowing accumulation u/s 11 (2) in the case of a late return - return of income a well as Form-10 have been filed belatedly - delay in filing of form 10 only has been condoned in exercise of powers delegated to the undersigned. It however, does not mean that the delay in filing of return of income also stands condoned. - as per CIT-A in the absence of condonation of delay in filing of return of income. the claim of exemption u/s 11(2) cannot be allowed in the facts of the present case - HELD THAT:- AO in his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31/10/2018 had considered each and every aspect of this issue. In fact, the return of income was filed on 20/10/2016 declaring Nil income and this was in time. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 29/11/2017 and this was selected for scrutiny. The ld. CIT(E) while condoning the delay in filing of Form 10 vide his order dt. 20/11/2017, u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act, was aware of all these circumstances. As the original return was filed in time and delay in filing of Form 10 was condoned by the ld. CIT(E), we are of the view that the twin conditions mentioned u/s 13(9) of the Act was satisfied. It is not the case of the revenue that the original return of income was not filed within the due date of filing as specified u/s 139(1) - AO has considered the legal position and has taken a possible view after application of mind.
Assessing Officer was bound to consider the original return of income which was filed in time as well as the Form 10 filed after condonation of delay by the ld. CIT(E) and grant exemption to the assessee. He did so in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31/10/2018. He took a possible view. Such view cannot be considered as an order which causes prejudice to the revenue - the order passed u/s 263 is bad in law and without jurisdiction - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (11) TMI 617
Detention of goods - validity of e-way bill expired at time of detention - option for extension of period of e-way bill - Validity of notices issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act -- HELD THAT:- The classification in the table under R.138(10) is essentially between ‘over dimensional cargo’ and ‘other cargo’. In both the categories of cases, the cargo can be transported either by road or through multimodal shipment in which at least one leg involves transport by ship. The number of days which would count towards the validity period of the e-way bill, for cargo other than over dimensional cargo, would vary depending upon whether the distance traversed is upto 100 km or more. While one day validity is given for distance traversed upto 100 km, an additional day is granted for every 100 kms or part thereof traversed thereafter. Similarly, in the case of over dimensional cargo, one day validity is granted for up to 20 km traversed, and an additional day for every 20 km or part thereof traversed thereafter.
The mere fact that the respondent had detained the goods did not, in any manner, prevent the petitioner from extending the validity period of the e-way bill, and producing a copy of the extended e-way bill before the authority for the purposes of seeking a clearance of the goods.
The detention of the goods and the vehicle in the instant case cannot be said to be unjustified - petitioner are permitted to clear the goods and the vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in the impugned notices - petition allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 616
Cancellation of registration under the GST regime - closure of business or transfer of business - Section 30 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- It is apparent from the sequence of events narrated in the writ petition that the original cancellation of registration, on the ground that there was a closure/discontinuance of business, was an erroneous one, in that the petitioner had erroneously chosen the said reason instead of the actual reason, which was the transfer of business to an another entity. This is not a case where the petitioner changed his mind subsequently, and sought to insert a new reason in place of the old one, for the communication produced by the petitioner as Ext.P2 would clearly suggest that steps were taken by the petitioner almost immediately after the receipt of the order of cancellation of registration to make the correction as aforesaid.
The 1st respondent should take steps to change the reasons for cancellation of registration of the petitioner to 'transfer of business on account amalgamation, merger, demerger, sales, leased or otherwise' and issue a fresh order of cancellation of registration - the 1st respondent is directed to adopt a suitable procedure and issue the fresh order of cancellation of registration as indicated above to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (11) TMI 615
Refund claim - Intermediary Services - Export of Services - vires of Section 168 of the CGST Act, 2017 - challenge primarily on the ground that no mandate can be provided for directing the lower quasi-judicial authority to treat the Circular / Instructions issued by the Board to be binding.
HELD THAT:- Notice of motion for 08.09.2020.
-
2020 (11) TMI 614
Stay of demand - recovery proceedings - HELD THAT:- As the disputed demand arises out of an issue which is covered in petitioner favour by a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in DIT v. Ericsson A.B. [2011 (12) TMI 91 - DELHI HIGH COURT] this Court grants a stay of the demand of Rupees twenty-nine crores, ninety-three lakhs, six hundred and three arising out of the final assessment order dated 07th February, 2020 for the relevant assessment year 2017-2018 till the disposal of the appeal pending before the CIT (Appeal). The CIT (Appeal) is directed to decide the petitioner’s appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of twelve weeks.
Since the appeal has been directed to be disposed expeditiously, Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned counsel for petitioner assures and undertakes to this Court that the petitioner shall not seek refund for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 till the disposal of the said appeal.
-
2020 (11) TMI 613
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Tribunal confirming the decision of CIT (A) restricting the disallowance to the extent of exempt income - HELD THAT:- Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue on the question of disallowance under Section 14A in conformity with the judicial precedents, find substantial merit in the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) for limiting the disallowance to the extent of exempt income. Hence, we decline to interfere. - Decided against revenue.
Nature of expenditure - expenses incurred on account of professional and legal fees - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- Professional fees paid by Appellant are for existing business and not incurred for analyzing the market for new line of business or is not for diversification of its business. By incurring such expenditure, Appellant is constantly getting updates regarding market survey carried out for existing product line and same does not give any enduring benefit or is not in nature of capital expenditure. The expenses are not incur red for exploring the market for a new product and rather expenses is incurred for exploring the circumstances as to how Assessee should manage it s existing business more effectively hence relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of KJS India Pvt. Limited [2010 (7) TMI 797 - ITAT DELHI] expenditure incur red by Appellant is business expenditure allowable under Section 37.
Also in the case of Majestic Auto Limited [2009 (1) TMI 57 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] on similar circumstances held that expenditure incurred for obtaining report on reorganization of its core business and for improving market share and profit ability is allowable as revenue expenditure. Expenditure incurred by Appellant is allowable as revenue expenditure. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (11) TMI 612
Rectification of TDS mismatch - seeking refund along with interest for the delayed period from the date of deduction of TDS to the date of actual granting of refund - amount of ₹ 1,15,034/- was deducted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India from the payment made to the petitioner towards TDS, while tax payable by the petitioner for the assessment year 2007-08 was only ₹ 64,025/-. The petitioner was awaiting refund. - HELD THAT:- As seen that TDS has been deducted as per Ext.P3 Certificate issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. According to the petitioner, the petitioner produced original of Ext.P3 along with Ext.P1 ITR. The case of the respondents is that this remittance is of the year 2007-08 and its entry is not reflected in Database. When the petitioner asserts that original of Ext.P3 has already been submitted before the Income Tax Authorities, the petitioner cannot be called upon to produce the original again.
Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider Ext.P6 rectification application with reference to Ext.P3. The first respondent will be at liberty to get necessary information from the Life Insurance Corporation to decide the issue. While deciding the issue the first respondent shall also consider whether necessary reduction is to be given towards interest dues, to the petitioner.
-
2020 (11) TMI 611
TP Adjustment - assessee challenging that Additional Commissioner is not empowered to pass an order for determining the arm’s-length price - HELD THAT:- Assessee is not arguing that there is no authority from the board in favour of the learned transfer pricing officer i.e. the Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax who passed the order u/s 92CA (3) of the act. The challenge of the assessee is that that Additional Commissioner as a class of officers, are not included in the definition of the Transfer Pricing Officer u/s 92CA of the Act. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax has been authorised to pass an order u/s 92CA of the Act. The Joint Commissioner has been defined u/s 2 (28C) of the Act wherein the Joint Commissioner means a person appointed to be a Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Or An Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax Under subsection (1) of Section 117 of the Act. Therefore the definition of the Joint Commissioner includes the Additional Commissioner also. In view of this, additional ground raised by the assessee does not have any merit. Hence dismissed.
Comparability analysis - selection of comparable - HELD THAT:- Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected. Extraordinary events during the year in the comparable company’s financial statements, which has impacted its profitability margins adversely need to be seen.
When the comparable company is taken as good comparable, only requirement is to seen the functional operations of the standalone balance sheet. There are various issues which are mentioned in the management discussion and analysis of the consolidated accounts of the comparable company which are not at all relevant for the comparability analysis as it does not reflect in the annual accounts of the comparable company on standalone basis. Even otherwise, the revenue streams of the comparable also do not show that it earns any revenue from its LPO business or KPO business.- Accentia technologies Ltd, in absence of any other argument by the learned authorized representative, is held to be comparable and action of the learned transfer pricing officer and learned dispute resolution panel by including the above comparable company in the comparability analysis is upheld.
Rejection of entities on account of huge turnover - exclude I gate global Ltd., Infosys BPO Ltd and TCS E Serve Limited from the comparability analysis.
Comparable has different financial year - Though R Systems International Ltd follows calendar year as its accounting year, its financial for the financial year can be recast by considering its quarterly financial results.
Several coordinate benches have taken this view therefore, we also direct the assessee to reconstruct the financial results of this comparable by producing credible information with respect to eliminating and includible quarter before the learned transfer-pricing officer.Ld TPO is directed to examine the same and if found in order, include this comparable in the comparability analysis.
-
2020 (11) TMI 610
Computation of capital gain tax - computing the inflation cost of the asset - Computing the cost of acquisition of property in terms of section 49 - HELD THAT:- In the case of Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash [2019 (2) TMI 1059 - ITAT BANGALORE] for computing the inflation cost of the asset, the date to be reckoned from the date of allotment of the property to the assessee and not the date on which possession certificate issued to the assessee. Further, a judgement relied by CIT in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini[2017 (10) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT] have no application and it was delivered on different context with reference to section 2(47)(v) of the Act and the judgement of Hon’ble High Court relied by the assessee’s counsel in the case of A. Suresh Rao cited [2014 (1) TMI 1585 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] is a direct judgement applicable to the facts of the case.
Being so, we have no hesitation in reversing the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to consider the date of allotment of property i.e. 20.5.1986 for the purpose of determining the cost of inflation of the assets, while computing the cost of acquisition of property in terms of section 49 of the Act. This ground of the assessee is allowed.
Non-granting cost of improvement, while computing the capital gain - HELD THAT:- There is no iota of evidence that there is an existing building in the impugned land. The only contention of the assessee is that assessee declared income from said property under the head “income from house property” in earlier assessment years. However, there was no evidence to show that there is a building therein - declaring income in the return of income from Siddharth Nagar Property does not suggest that there is a building in the impugned property. Since the assessee has not furnished any revenue record to show that there is a building or evidence regarding power connections or water connections, in the absence of this evidence, it has to be noted that there is no building in the scheduled property and the assessee is not entitled for any benefit of cost of improvement. This ground of appeal of assessee is allowed.
Non giving due credit towards TCS as per 26AS - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) given a direction to the A.O. to give TCS credit to the assessee after due verification. Accordingly, the assessee shall produce the necessary evidence with regard to the TCS credit and the A.O. shall consider the same and give due credit as reflected in form 26AS. This ground of the assessee is allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 609
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - whether no recording in the reason for re-opening that there was failure on the part of the assessee truly and fully in disclosing material facts required for the assessment? - HELD THAT:- As relying on M/S. PREMIER VYAPAAR PVT. [2018 (11) TMI 479 - ITAT KOLKATA] and M/S. V2 RETAIL LTD. [2020 (1) TMI 685 - ITAT KOLKATA] we hold that the re-opening is bad in law, arbitrary, erroneous since no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee fully and truly in disclosing material facts as stipulated by the first provision of section 147 of the Act is present in the reasons recorded for such reopening.
AO failed to satisfy the precondition of statutory provisions as discussed above for usurping the jurisdiction and therefore, the entire proceeding is void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. We find no justification in such re-opening. The same has no legs to stand upon and hence the entire re-assessment proceeding is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (11) TMI 608
Exemption u/s 10(38) denied - addition was made u/s 68 - Denial of an opportunity of fair hearing by providing copy of the statement and related details - HELD THAT:- As decided in case of SHRI. KIRTI K. BHANSALI [2019 (5) TMI 1754 - ITAT BANGALORE] as held that since the petitioner has been denied an opportunity of fair hearing by providing copy of the statement and related details, the matter is required to be reconsidered by the AO by providing fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee after furnishing details / copy of the statement based on which the impugned assessment order has been passed.
From the above it is seen that matter was restored back to the file of the AO for fresh decision - Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (11) TMI 607
Rectification u/s 154 - Addition invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the A.O. has not doubted the genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, taking proceedings u/s 154 of the I.T.Act only goes to show that it is only a mere change of opinion, which is outside the mandate of the said section. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which could be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there might conceivably be two opinions.
Since the assessee in the given facts, had proved that there is commercial / business expediency in making cash purchases, the mistake cannot be stated to be obvious and apparent from record in view of the judgment in the case of M/s.M.K.Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (1) TMI 37 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and the order of Jaipur ITAT in the case of M/s.A.Daga Royal Arts [2018 (6) TMI 1240 - ITAT JAIPUR].For the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial pronouncements, I hold that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) in a 154 proceedings is uncalled for and I quash the same. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (11) TMI 606
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - where there is lack of enquiry on the part of the AO - HELD THAT:- As decided in GANGESHWARI METAL PVT LTD. [2013 (1) TMI 624 - DELHI HIGH COURT] to sum up section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the year in respect of which the assessee fails to explain the nature and source shall be assessed as its undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained by the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. The PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax assessments u/s 143(3) were placed on record. Accordingly all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 of the Act i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was placed before the AO and the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him. Without doing so, the addition made by the AO is based on conjectures and surmises cannot be justified. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, no addition was warranted under Section 68
Considering M/S. GOODPOINT COMMODEAL PVT. LTD. [2019 (6) TMI 600 - ITAT KOLKATA] case to the facts of this case and as M/s. Mahakal Shoppers (P) Ltd., has been assessed to income tax u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Income Tax Department and as the documents filed by the assessee as well as by M/s. Mahakal Shoppers (P) Ltd. directly with the AO in response to a direct enquiry, prove the identity and creditworthiness of the applicant for share and as similar applicant for share from this very share holder has been accepted as genuine by the AO in the immediately preceding assessment year, and the addition in question, in our view, cannot be sustained. Hence, we delete the same. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
............
|
9911796707
