TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The assessee has purchased a land in Gautam Budh Nagar measuring 222.58 sq. yds. for construction of group housing duly approved by the Yamuna Expressway on 12.12.2012, which means that the business of the assessee commenced in F.Y. 2012-13. Therefore, the observation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not commenced its business is factually incorrect and on proper appreciation of facts, we decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 1 is dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - failure on part of assessee to submit the confirmation from the lender, proof of source of income outside India, proof of residential status or copy of passport of the lender for proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by AO without appreciating the fact that the addition was made by the A.O. correctly treating the interest income as income from other sources as assessee has not recognized the revenue during the year under consideration as per real estate Accounting Standards, (AS-9). 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition made by A.O. without appreciating the fact that the addition u/s 68 of the Act was made due to failure on part of assessee to submit the confirmation from the lender, proof of source of income outside India, proof of residential status or copy of passport of the lender for proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender to pay the huge money. 3. The appellant craves to le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,69,48,50,000/- as long term borrowings from Shri Owais Usmani who happens to be a 100% share holder of the assessee company. Money was received against issue of compulsory convertible debentures of face value of Rs. 125/- each, at discounted price of Rs. 100/- each. 9. The assessee explained that Rs. 1,69,48,50,000/- is actually face value of debentures and the assessee has actually received Rs. 1,35,58,80,000/- out of which only Rs. 1,28,09,10,000/- has been received during the year under consideration. 10. The assessee was asked to submit evidences under the light of provisions of section 68 of the Act. 11. On receiving no plausible reply, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,28,09,10,000/-. 12. The assessee challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uated at GH-F 2, SDZ, Sector 25, Jaypee Greens Sports City, Gautam Budh Nagar measuring 222.58 sq. yds. for construction of group housing duly approved by the Yamuna Expressway on 12.12.2012, which means that the business of the assessee commenced in F.Y. 2012-13. Therefore, the observation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not commenced its business is factually incorrect and on proper appreciation of facts, we decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 1 is dismissed. 20. In so far as deletion of addition u/s 68 is concerned, we have carefully perused the bank statement of Kotak Mahindra Bank belonging to Shri Owais Usmani and we find that Shri Owais Usmani is having more than sufficient balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
