TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the addition made under section 68 on account of share capital and share premium was sustainable. (ii) Whether the disallowance of interest expenditure on advances allegedly made out of borrowed funds was sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether the addition made under section 68 on account of share capital and share premium was sustainable.
Analysis: The assessee produced share application forms, bank statements, PAN details, income-tax returns, affidavits and statements recorded during assessment. Most of the applicants appeared before the Assessing Officer and confirmed the investments. The Tribunal noted that, for the relevant year, the assessee was required to establish the identity of the investors and, on the facts, had also demonstrated creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal further held that the Assessing Officer could not insist upon proof of the source of the source in the absence of the proviso to section 68 then applicable, and that any further enquiry, if necessary, had to be directed against the investors.
Conclusion: The addition under section 68 was not sustainable and the deletion was upheld in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance of interest expenditure on advances allegedly made out of borrowed funds was sustainable.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantial interest-free funds and that the advances in question were either covered by such funds or were carried forward from the predecessor concern. Applying the settled principle that, where both interest-free and interest-bearing funds are available, advances are presumed to have come out of interest-free funds unless the Revenue shows a direct nexus with borrowed funds, the Tribunal approved the first appellate finding deleting the disallowance.
Conclusion: The interest disallowance was not sustainable and the deletion was upheld in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal failed in entirety, and both the impugned additions were deleted by the first appellate authority and sustained by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: For a pre-proviso assessment under section 68, proof of the identity of share applicants, along with substantiated genuineness of the share transactions, is sufficient; the assessee is not required to prove the source of the investors' funds. Where interest-free funds are available in excess of the advances, no disallowance of interest is warranted in the absence of a proven nexus with borrowed funds.
TaxTMI 
