9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income declaring Nil income, after claiming brought forward loss to the extent of Rs. 2,70,76,818/-. Tax had been paid on book profit u/s 115JB on Rs. 2,67,27,280/-. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee company had received accommodation entry from M/s Garg Finvest (P) Ltd. amounting to Rs. 3,00,315/- each on 23-8-2003 total amounting to Rs. 6,00,630/-, notice u/s 148 was issued after duly recording reasons and prior approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-9, New Delhi. 2.1. The assessee had filed objections against reopening of the case and filed the return in response to notice u/s 148. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Garg Finvest (P) Ltd. were furnished; (b) Genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the parties was not established. (c) The assessee was taking the plea almost throughout the assessment proceedings that no payment had been received from M/s Garg Finvest (P) Ltd. (d) No copies of the contract notes, name and address of the broker, copies of the transfer certificates/ deeds, proof of delivery of shares etc. were filed even after accepting the receipt of Rs. 3 lacs from M/s Garg Finvest (P) Ltd. (e) The purchaser had not produced copies of share certificates, share transfer deeds/ certificates so that the genuineness of the transactions and availability of funds in its own capacity could be examined. (f) M/s Garg Finvest (P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction u/s 147 is vitiated, the Assessing Officer ceasing to have jurisdiction over reassessment proceedings once the income alleged to have escaped assessment recorded in the reasons was not found correct and no addition was made on that account in the assessment order. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding the reopening of assessment in terms of the provisions of Section ~the Income- tax Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that no addition was made on the basis of reasons recorded by the AO and therefore ,assessment was liable to be quashed on that ground alone. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f information received from Investigation Wing. She did not accept the assessee's contention that the assessee's case did not fall within the ambit of section 194(1)(b) as she had upheld the addition of Rs. 3 lacs and also of commission of Rs. 7500/-. 4.2. Before us the assessee has assailed the invocation of jurisdiction u/s 147, mainly on the ground that once the income alleged to have escaped assessment recorded in the reasons, was not found correct and no addition was made on this count in the assessment order, the assessment was liable to be quashed. 4.3. We find that notice u/s 148 had been issued primarily on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing of department regarding accommodation entries received from M/s Ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; "The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Trichur Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Trichur, vide its judgment has suggested a formula for computing disallowance u/s 14A in cases prior to AY 2008-09 where the provisions of Rule 8D of IT rules are not applicable. The formula suggested by the Hon'ble High Court is as under: Total Interest Liability ___________________X 1,26,61,025= Rs. 33,16,436/- 7,62,03,737 Keeping in view of the above facts, I am of the view that the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A read with Rule 8D are not applicable in this year. Hence the addition is restricted only to Rs. 33,16,436/- instead of Rs. 1,64,38,217/-." 6.1. The assessee had given followi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT ( A) erred in ignoring the directions of the ITAT in their order dated 20.9.2010 in ITA no. 3479/Del/j2010 and thereby further holding that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act,1961 is restricted to Rs. 1,96,73,087/- as against Rs. 1,84,36,012/- made by the AO . 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act,1961 to the extent of Rs. 1,96,73,087/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) did not have any jurisdiction to enhance the disallowance u/s 14A Act originally made by the AO. 13. On the other hand the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
