TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....capital of Rs. 5,00,000/- and paid up share capital of Rs. 80,000/-. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 was conducted in the case of Laddha Group on 09-10-2002. During verification of materials found in search, it transpired that Laddha Group had acquired entire paid up shares of M/s. Vastukrupa Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. from the assessees. Shri Prakash Laddha in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) on 11-10-2002 admitted that he and his wife have taken over the shares of Vastukrupa Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd., Nashik from the assessees. For verification of the facts, notice u/s. 131 was issued to the assessees. The assessees vide letter dated 09-08-2004 submitted, that Vastukrupa Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in 1991. The main objects of the company were land development, construction of residential and commercial complex etc. The authorized share capital of the company is Rs. 5,00,000/- and the paid-up capital is Rs. 80,000/-. Both the assessees are Directors of the company. Out of the total paid up share capital, the assessees were having 400 shares each having face value of Rs. 100/- each. The assessee in ITA No. 163/PN/2009 (Mrs. Aruna J. Kapse) sold ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst Rs. 5,00,000/-. 2. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the consideration for transfer of 400 shares was Rs. 5,00,000/- as per copy of share transfer form seized in action u/s. 132(4), statement of Mr. Prakash Laddha u/s. 132(4) and statement of cross examination of Mr. Prakash Laddha. 3. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in accepting part of the contents of the letter filed by the appellant beneficial to the revenue and rejecting part of the contents of the same letter, which is not beneficial to the revenue against the proposition of law laid down by hon'ble Pune ITAT, in the case of Chandramohan Mehta Vs. ACIT, 71 ITD 245. 4. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in taxing the consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/- towards expenditure incurred by the appellant for site development of the land during 1990-91 to 31/3/2000 Rs. 13,37,745/-. 5. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that no consideration towards expenditure incurred by the appellant for site development of the land was received and the purchaser is also not willing to pay the same and litigating the same in Nashik....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, the assessees divided the consideration of shares Rs. 32,00,000/- in hands of assessee in ITA No. 164/PN/2009 and Rs. 13,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee in ITA No. 163/PN/2009 in an arbitrary manner and without any basis. No valid explanation whatsoever was given for such unequal distribution of the sale consideration. The ld. DR further contended that the assessees have claimed site development expenses as part of consideration. However, no such expenses are allowable when the consideration is for sale of shares. The ld. DR prayed for dismissing the appeals of the assessees and sustaining the impugned orders. 7. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. The first argument raised by the ld. AR is with respect to validity of proceedings u/s. 158BD. We find that the assessees had neither raised this ground before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) nor this ground has been taken in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR for the first time has assailed the invoking of jurisdiction u/s. 158BD in oral arguments before the Tribunal. The ld. DR has strongly objected to the same. It is a well settle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ares and the company is Rs. 45,00,000/-. The contentions of the assessees is that they have received only Rs. 10,00,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- has not been received by the assessees from Shri Prakash Laddha till date. The post dated cheques issued by Shri Prakash Laddha for the payment of remaining amount were dishonoured. Further, the stand of the assessees is that Shri Janardan R. Kapse had incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 13,37,745/- and Mrs. Aruna J. Kapse had incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 4,11,872/- for improvement of site. The aforesaid amounts aggregating to Rs. 17,49,617/- was in the nature of unsecured loan to the company. The consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- included this amount of unsecured loan. A perusal of records show that 800 shares having face value of Rs. 100/- each have been transferred in the name of Shri Prakash Laddha and his wife consequent upon the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-. We do not concur with the submissions of the assessees that the consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- is towards transfer of shares and repayment of cost of improvement of site. The assessees till date have not brought on record any document to show the term....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P. Laddha to Shri Janardan R. Kapse in cash. The relevant extract of the letter dated 18-10-2004 by Shri Prakash P. Laddha submitted during the course of assessment proceedings is as under: "By letter dated 18-10-2004 - Para 5 - As regards the refusal of receipt by Shri. J.R. Kapse of Rs. 41,50,000/-, I have to point out that this refusal does not have any effect on determination of my UDI. In the financial statements for UD1 transactions, Rs. 9,29,000/- and Rs. 8,60,000/- have been shown in F.Y. 1999-00 & 2000-01 respectively as paid to Shree. J.R. Kapse. Further, in F.Y 2001-02 Rs. 23,21,000/- have been shown as received against "Plot Advance Paid" in the regular books of Accounts for which corresponding source is UDI financial transactions, this did not actually represent any transaction/transfer of funds. Thus, for Rs. 23,21,000/- in F.Y 2001-02 neither any amount was paid nor any amount was received. However, the amount of Rs. 40,000/- was paid to Shree. J.R. Kapse against purchase of shares. Therefore, in view of the refusal by Shree. J.R. Kapse, the amount standing in his name be treated as use of name of Shree J.R. Kapse to park UDI." 12. A perusal of the above letter ....