2017 (2) TMI 122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only on the basis of submissions of assessee without appreciating the fact that at the time of the assessment proceedings the assessee could not prove that the source of making the investments were out of its own funds and not funds on which interest was paid? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the fair market value of the unlisted shares of PMP Components P. Ltd. adopted by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 2(22B) (i) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for working out the long term capital gain? (iii) Whe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the basis that own tax free funds available with the respondent-assessee for the year ending 31st March, 2004 was to the extent of Rs. 33.94 crores while tax free investments were to the extent of Rs. 4.71 crores and for the year ending 31st March, 2005 the own tax free funds available are at Rs. 38.05 crores while tax free investments were only Rs. 2.34 crores. Thus on application of the ratio of decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 it held that the respondent-assessee had large funds of its own to make investments and therefore disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of interest paid on borrowed funds would not arise. Further the impugned order placed reliance upon its order in case of the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore the mere fact that attention was not specifically invited to these figures before the Assessing Officer would not by itself justify the Tribunal ignoring the same while dealing with an appeal under the Act. (d) In the above view, question no.(i) as proposed being concluded by the decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Regarding question no.(ii): (a) The issue which arises herein for consideration is whether it is open to the Assessing Officer to substitute the 'full value of consideration' received on sale of shares by its 'fair market value' in the subject Assessment Ye....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Revenue before us is that these transactions are all between companies belonging to the same group. Therefore it is urged that the transaction are colourable transaction and different considerations would apply. (c) At the hearing of the admission, the Revenue did not point out any facts which would evidence that the transaction was not genuine. In such a case where the genuineness is not disputed with any evidence, it is not open to discard the documents and/or transaction on the basis of some supposed object/intent. In the present facts the Revenue accepts the documents but only substitutes the consideration. Therefore, the issue is whether such substitution of full consideration received by fair market value of the asset is permiss....