TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of acquiring shares of certain companies from certain shareholders without paying any cash consideration and instead the consideration was settled through issuance of shares to the respective parties. In the balance sheet of the assessee company in the schedule to share capital, it is very clearly mentioned by way of note that the fresh share capital was raised during the year for consideration other than cash. Hence we hold that provision of section 68 are not applicable. Also see JATIA INVESTMENT CO. [ 1992 (8) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2178/Kol/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-11-2018 - Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for allotment of shares, have sold their investment to the assessee company and the assessee company, has as consideration for the purchase of those shares had allotted shares at a premium. It is a case of swapping of shares. The shares were allotted for consideration other than cash. The question is whether under these facts and circumstances Section 68 of the Act, would be attracted. 4.1. The ld. D/R, submits that the premium is not justified and that the ld. CIT(A) was wrong in holding that the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. He relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. In reply the ld. Counsel for the assessee, submits that each of the above companies have filed replies befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was raised during the year for consideration other than cash. Hence we hold that provision of section 68 of the Act are not applicable in the instant case and accordingly the entire addition deserves to be deleted which has rightly been done by the Id. CIT(A) which does not require any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 4.2. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Co .v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1994] 206 ITR 718 (CAL.) held as follows:- Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credits Assessment year 1976- 77 Partners of assessee-firm were members of one J group running several businesses and industries Accounts of assessee-firm showed that it had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Electro Polychem Ltd., (supra) and Steller Investment Ltd., (supra). 26. This case is distinguishable from the case of CIT v. Lovely Export (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) in that the transactions were only book transactions, and there was no cash receipt. The decisions in (i) CIT v. Focus Exports (P.) Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 46/228 Taxman 88 (Delhi) (Mag.); (ii) CIT v. Globus Securities Finance Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 465/224 Taxman 237 (Delhi); (iii) Onassis Axles (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 364 ITR 53/224 Taxman 80 (Mag.)/44 taxmann.com 408 (Delhi); (iv) Olwin Tiles India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 382 ITR 291/237 Taxman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
