ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
HC dismissed the revenue's addition under s.68 and allowed the assessee's appeal. The court held that where share allotment and premium were recorded contemporaneously with statutory filings and independent verification identified subscribers and traced funds, the AO could not, merely because directors failed to attend summons under s.131, conclude absence of any explanation under s.68. Applying the second proviso to s.68, the tribunal's and appellate authority's concurrent factual findings-that subscribers were identified, source of funds was established, and explanations were sufficient-were not perverse. In those circumstances the AO's subjective disbelief was unsustainable and the addition as unexplained credit was reversed.
HC dismissed the revenue's addition under s.68 and allowed the assessee's appeal. The court held that where share allotment and premium were recorded contemporaneously with statutory filings and independent verification identified subscribers and traced funds, the AO could not, merely because directors failed to attend summons under s.131, conclude absence of any explanation under s.68. Applying the second proviso to s.68, the tribunal's and appellate authority's concurrent factual findings-that subscribers were identified, source of funds was established, and explanations were sufficient-were not perverse. In those circumstances the AO's subjective disbelief was unsustainable and the addition as unexplained credit was reversed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.