Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Income Tax Officer-10 (2) (4) , Mumbai Versus M/s. Superline Construction P. Ltd., Sitara Properties Pvt Ltd., Samsung Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd., Soumya Trading and Finance Pvt Ltd, Prarup Properties Pvt Ltd., Roop Darshan Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Sumangal Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd

Addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The Assessing Officer made this addition on account of unsecured loan as the assessee was not explained the source of cash credit. The Assessing Officer came to this conclusion mainly on the ground that the assessee-company failed to prove that the statement recorded from Shri Mukesh C. Choksi and Shri Jayesh Sampat by the Investigation Wing was incorrect. According to the Assessing Officer, the genuineness of the transaction could not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the amount on account of unsecured loan which was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 3645/Mum/2014, ITA No. 3644/Mum/2014, ITA No. 3646/Mum/2014, ITA No. 3647/Mum/2014, ITA No. 3648/Mum/2014, ITA No. 3650/Mum/2014, ITA No. 3651/Mum/2014 - Dated:- 30-11-2015 - SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inst the order of CIT(A) on following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of ₹ 40,00,000/- made under section 68 of I T Act in respect of share application money without appreciating the fact that addition was based on specific information provided by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department that the investor companies had issued cheques towards the alleged share application money in return of cash. 2. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hs from eight companies out of which ₹ 40 lakhs was received from three companies viz. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Alpha Cehmie Trade Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Talent Infoway Ltd. The stand of the assessee has been that the reasons recorded did not whisper about any tangible material which triggered re-opening u/s 147. The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation) without recording Assessing Officer s own satisfac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gible material in the form of statement recorded from the above individuals were available before the Assessing Officer after the assessment was completed. After receiving the report and the statements, the Assessing Officer had gone through the contents and then he formed an independent opinion and after satisfying himself had recorded the reasons for reopening. 2.2 After reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 40 lakhs received by t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that addition was made based on specific information provided by Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department. That investor companies have issued cheques towards alleged share application money in return of cash. Assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon it to prove the credit entries of share application money as required under statute. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored. Before us the stand of the ld. Authorized Representative for the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

own by the co-ordinate bench, as discussed above, we do not find any merit in the addition so made by treating the sale proceeds of shares as undisclosed income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the same. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove. ii) ITAT E Bench in M/s. SDB Estate Pvt Ltd vs. ITO-(5)(3)(2) in ITA No. 584/Mum/2015: AY 2008-09 has decided similar issue by observing as under:- In view of the ab .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s decided the following cases in favour of the assessee on similar issue. a) ITO - 10(2)(1) vs. M/s. Deep Darshan Properties Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 2117/Mum/2014 : AY 2006-07 and ITA No.2118/Mum/2014 : AY 2007-08 b) ITO -10(2)(3) vs. Aajivan Computers Pvt Ltd in ITA No.2160/Mum/2014 :AY 2006-07 c) ITO -10(2)(3) vs. Dignity Securities Trading Pvt Ltd in ITA No.2157/Mum/2014 :AY 2006-07 d) ITO -10(2)(1) vs. M/s. Blue Hill Properties Pvt Ltd in ITA No.2119/Mum/2014 :AY 2006-07 2.3 It was also pointed o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing Officer failed to appreciate that there is no documentary evidence against the assessee-company to support such impugned additions. It was further submitted by the assessee that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the statements of any person recorded u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, the assessee-company has fully discharged the burden of proof, onus of proof and explained the source of share capital and advances received by established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of tra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the entire impugned additions of ₹ 40 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act on account of share capital subscription received by the assesseecompany. 2.6 Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 3. ITA No. 3644/Mum/2014 : AY 2006-07: In this case, i.e. ITO vs. M/s. Sitara Properties Pvt. Ltd., the Assessing Officer made total addition of ₹ 1,15,47,169/- under se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for A.Y. 2007-08 vide para 2.1 to 2.5 of this order. Therefore, facts and issues being similar, so following same reasoning we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 85 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on account of share application money. The same is upheld. 3.2 The next issue in this appeal is with regard to addition of ₹ 30,47,169/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unsecured loan which was deleted by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the submission of assessee-company, has rightly deleted the addition on both accounts (i.e. ₹ 85 lakhs on account of share application money and ₹ 30,47,169/- on account of unsecured loan) by holding that the assessee-company had duly discharged the initial burden in respect of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of all transactions by relying on various judicial pronouncements. Moreover, similar issue was adjudicated by him in the case of M/s. Superline Constructions Pvt. Ltd .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Officer u/s 68 of the Act. 3.3 Accordingly, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 4. ITA No. 3646/Mum/2014 : AY 2006-07: In this case, i.e., ITO vs. M/s. Samsung Builders & Developers P. Ltd., the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 25,23,426/- under section 68 of the Act in respect of share application money of ₹ 10 lakhs and on account of unsecured loan of ₹ 15,23,426/- which was deleted by CIT(A). The issue in this appeal is similar to the issue we decided abov .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

view is fortified by our decision in M/s. Sitara Properties Pvt Ltd (supra) vide para 3.1 to 3.3 of this order. The same is upheld. 4.1 In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 5. ITA No. 3647/Mum/2014 : AY 2006-07: In this case i.e., ITO vs. M/s. Soumya Trading & Finance P. Ltd., also the Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 in respect of share application money of ₹ 35 lakhs and on account of unsecured loan of ₹ 45,70,686/- which was deleted by CIT(A). The iss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rder of the CIT(A) who has rightly granted relief to the assessee on both accounts. This view is fortified by our decision in M/s. Sitara Properties Pvt Ltd (supra) vide para 3.1 to 3.3 of this order. The same is upheld. 5.1 In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 6. ITA No. 3648/Mum/2014 : AY 2007-08: In this case, i.e. ITO Vs. M/s. Prarup Properties P. Ltd., the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 75 lakhs under section 68 in respect of share application money which was deleted b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version