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>Tribunal deletes additions under Income Tax Act, burden shifts to Revenue</h1> <h3>Madhva Home Décor Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO Ward-1 (5), Haryana</h3> Madhva Home Décor Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO Ward-1 (5), Haryana - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 96,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Enhancement of income by Rs. 64,00,400 under Section 56(2)(viib) on a protective basis.3. Validity of show cause notice under Section 250(2).4. Scope of limited scrutiny for share premium verification.5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).Summary:Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 96,00,000 under Section 68The assessee contended that all documentary evidence was provided to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The Revenue Authorities failed to appreciate the material, and the AO added the entire share capital and premium as unexplained credits. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that mere furnishing of names, addresses, and PAN particulars was insufficient. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing comprehensive documentation and that the Revenue had not conducted further investigations. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohtak Chain Co. (P) Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that once the assessee proves the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, the burden shifts to the Revenue, which failed to refute the evidence. The addition was thus deleted.Issue 2: Enhancement of Income by Rs. 64,00,400 under Section 56(2)(viib)The CIT(A) enhanced the income by rejecting the valuation report under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which used the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a valuation report from a Chartered Accountant, and the CIT(A) erred in not accepting it. The Tribunal cited the Gujarat High Court's judgment in IMC Limited and ors Vs. Union of India and ors, which held that when a statute provides a specific procedure, it must be followed. The Tribunal also referred to the Coordinate Bench's decision in Cinestan Entertainment (P). Ltd. Vs. ITO, emphasizing that the AO cannot substitute its own valuation for one provided by the assessee under a prescribed method. The enhancement was thus deleted.Issue 3: Validity of Show Cause Notice under Section 250(2)The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, as the deletion of the additions rendered it academic.Issue 4: Scope of Limited Scrutiny for Share Premium VerificationThe Tribunal found that the scope of limited scrutiny was to verify whether the funds received as share premium were from disclosed sources and correctly offered to tax. The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue's actions exceeded this scope.Issue 5: Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c)The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, as the deletion of the additions rendered it academic.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the additions and enhancements made by the CIT(A) and ruling in favor of the assessee on the primary issues. The other grounds were deemed academic and required no adjudication.
TaxTMI 