TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of taxpayer in share capital dispute, finding identity proofs sufficient.</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income Tax (central) -III Versus Anshika Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Flex International Pvt. Ltd., Anant Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Apoorva Extrusion Pvt. Ltd., Anshika Investment Pvt. Ltd., AR. Leasing pvt. Ltd.</h3> Commissioner Of Income Tax (central) -III Versus Anshika Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Flex International Pvt. Ltd., Anant Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Apoorva Extrusion ... Issues:1. Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejecting the Revenue's appeal under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Addition of a sum under Section 68 by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on suspicion regarding share capital received from companies during Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07.3. Dispute over the genuineness of share capital received and the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants.Analysis:Issue 1:The Revenue contested the ITAT's order rejecting its appeal against the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The AO had added back a sum of &8377;12,78,60,000 to the assessee's income, which was subsequently set aside by the CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT. The Revenue argued that the entire order of the ITAT was erroneous.Issue 2:During AY 2006-07, the AO added back a sum under Section 68 concerning share capital issued at a premium to companies. The AO raised concerns about the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants, noting that notices sent to them were returned unserved. The CIT (Appeals) considered the materials on record and held that the addition made by the AO was unjustified, as the necessary documents to establish the identity of the share applicants had been provided.Issue 3:The CIT (Appeals) extensively analyzed the case law on Section 68 and concluded that the appellant had received share capital from companies regularly assessed to tax. The CIT (Appeals) found that the share applicants had submitted relevant documents, and the onus on the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transaction was duly discharged. The ITAT affirmed these findings, noting the investigation report confirming the source of investment by the share applicants and the creditworthiness of the companies. The ITAT emphasized the importance of considering the genuineness of the transaction and the credibility of the share applicants, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact regarding the true identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction related to the share capital issue. The Court criticized the AO for failing to consider crucial documents and observations, directing appropriate action by the income tax authorities. The Court dismissed the appeals, stating that no substantial question of law arose in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
