TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee's Cross Objection are identical, hence, the same are being consolidated with this common order for the sake of convenience, by first dealing with Revenue's Appeal. 2. The grounds raised in the revenue's appeal read as under:- 1. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 99,20,000/- without appreciating that the assessee received the shares as gift from her husband within 5 days of acquiring the shares by him and assessee further sold the shares within 5 months of acquisition of shares which infers to the fact that this frequent transfer of shares is nothing but a colourable device adopted by assessee to bring her black money in books. 2. The CIT(A) has erred by deleting all the addition of Rs. 99,20,000/- without apprecia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Steels Pvt. Ltd. and 'Intrinsic Value' of each share of M/s Anil Steels Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. 1,64,52,744/- and Rs. 103.12 respectively. On the basis of the Net Worth of 'M/s Anil Steels Pvt. Ltd.' and 'Intrinsic Value' of each share of M/s Anil Steels Pvt. Ltd., the AO doubted the sale price of shares of M/s Anil Steels Pvt. Ltd. @ Rs. 3,000/- to 4,000/- by the assessee. Further, the AO, observed that the assessee has en-cashed the cheques of M/s Chinu Press & Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. on 01.10.2008 though the shares which have been transferred on 31.03.2008, questioned the genuineness of shares transfer. The AO also held that the parties; 7 companies, whom shares have been sold were not having income to explain the purchases of share....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ari vs. ITO 2016 TIOL 1746-ITAT-Mum. 8. On the contrary, ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon the Jurisdictional High Court decision dated 18.01.2017 passed in ITA Nos. 43/2016 & 44/2016 in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Jatin Investment Pvt. Ltd. and stated that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order. The issue involved is that whether or not the sale consideration of Rs. 99,20,000/- received on transfer of shares is income assessable u/s. 68 of the Act. We find that in this case the assessee has discharged the onus of proving identity of the par....