Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 684 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credits in the matter share application money - as alleged assessee failed to satisfy the three relevant parameters of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness - HELD THAT:- Form 20B with R.O.C & details of share application sufficiently indicates that it had filed all the relevant details of the holding entity, which has nowhere been rebutted from the Assessing Officer’s end. As emerges from all the foregoing details assessee had in fact received supplies of equipments to the tune of ₹ 6 crores from its heading entity M/s. Neon Healthcare & Research Institute Limited and the said entity also carried out pathological tests amounting to ₹ 3,35,000/- on its behalf. Learned counsel invited our attention to the fact that assessee’s foregoing detailed evidence(s) indicates that the amount of ₹ 68,50,000/- had been received by a/c payee cheque(s) as per the corresponding bank statements and that the said entity holds assessee’s 47.73% stake. The Revenue fails to dispute the further clinching fact that assessee’s depreciation claim(s) on medical equipments supplied forming subject matter of impugned addition averment also stood allowed during the course of assessment itself. This tribunal’s decision in M/s. ABA Earthline Communications Ltd v/s. ITO., Ward 1(4), Kolkata [2018 (12) TMI 972 - ITAT KOLKATA] holds that section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits in absence of actual cash credits/receipts is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. Brought forward losses set off - HELD THAT:- Assessee’s shareholders to the extent of 51% of its stake i.e M/s. XL Enterprises and M/s. Neon Health Care had admittedly held 27.34% and 47.73% of its stake in preceding assessment year and 26.02% and 53.87% in the impugned assessment year; respectively. Coupled with this, the CIT(A) has also held that SHRI SUBHULAXMI MILLS LTD. [1995 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] settled the law long back that section 79 of the Act does not apply on brought forward losses on account of depreciation. We therefore affirm the CIT(A)’s findings for this latter issue as well. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|