Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>ITAT upholds CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions under section 68 for AY 2014-15</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3 (1), Visakhapatnam Versus M/s. SVN Hotels and Resorts Pvt Ltd.</h3> The ITAT Visakhapatnam dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions totaling Rs. 3,67,88,800 under section 68 read ... Addition u/s. 68 r.w.s 115BBE - disallowance of investments in the form of share capital and share premium received - HELD THAT:- As gone through the assessment order in the name of company granting investment to assessee passed U/s. 143(3) rws 147 of the Act wherein the fact that the company received funds by issuing equity shares at a premium was recorded in the assessment order. We therefore find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR that these funds were utilized by the investor company in the assessee company in the form of investment as share capital. We also see from the ledger accounts and bank statements submitted by the Ld. AR that the amounts were received through banking channels. CIT(A) has rightly observed that an amount of Rs. 1,95,25,000/- being the opening balance in the ledger account of M/s. Express Dealers Private Limited and the balance amount of Rs. 1,60,27,000/- was received into the bank account of the assessee during the current AY, and hence if the AO wished to tax the income u/s. 68 he should have added only on Rs. 1,60,27,000/- being the receipts during the current financial year and not the opening balance. We also observe from the ledger accounts submitted by the Ld. AR of M/s. Charansheela Consultants Private Limited the amounts were received through banking channels from 2011-12 onwards. AO has erred in treating the investments in the assessee company as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act is not valid in law and we therefore find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence no interference is required. - Decided against revenue. Issues:Appeal against order of Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 - Addition u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE - Share premium received from two companies - Validity of additions challenged by Revenue - Proper banking channels used for investments - Admissions and submissions by both parties - Assessment order of investing company considered - Ledger accounts and bank statements reviewed - Correctness of Ld. CIT(A)'s order in deleting additions disputed - Appeal dismissal by ITAT Visakhapatnam.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15, concerning the addition made under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, engaged in hotel business, had filed a return declaring NIL income, which was later scrutinized by the Ld. AO resulting in an addition of Rs. 3,67,88,800. The Ld. CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal by deleting the said additions, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT Visakhapatnam.The Revenue raised grounds challenging the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, specifically disputing the deletion of additions amounting to Rs. 3,55,22,000 and Rs. 12,36,800 received as share premium from two companies. The Revenue argued that the investing companies were 'paper companies,' and the Ld. AO rightly disallowed the premiums. Conversely, the Ld. Authorized Representative contended that the investments were received through proper banking channels, supported by ledger accounts and submissions.After considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the ITAT Visakhapatnam noted that the investing companies had received funds through equity shares at a premium, as recorded in their assessment orders. The ITAT observed that the funds were utilized by the investing companies in the assessee company as investments in the form of share capital. Ledger accounts and bank statements confirmed the transactions through banking channels. The ITAT upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that the additions made by the Ld. AO were not valid in law, as the investments were not unexplained cash credits under section 68 r.w.s 115BBE.Consequently, the ITAT Visakhapatnam dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the correctness of the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision in deleting the additions. The judgment was pronounced on 22nd August 2022.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found