TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by: Shri Sambit Mishra "1. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not admitting additional evidence with respect to investment in share capital by Cavere Trading Private Limited of Rs. 65,479,290/- despite the same being submitted immediately after first remand report, and there by upholding action of the Assessing Officer in making addition under section 68 alleging unexplained cash credit of the amount received towards share capital and share premium. 2. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in making addition under section 68 of Rs. 6,00,000/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....24 alleging difference in books of account of the Company and AIR information without appreciating that your appellant had not dealt with Sundaram BNP Paribas Asset to such a huge extent; and the amount of Rs. 769,000 recorded by the said party was an error on their part. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 22.09.2008 declaring total loss to the tune of Rs. 61,157,544/-. The return was accompanied by the Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account, Tax Audit Report u/s.44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short "the Act"). The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 05.08.2009 which was duly served upon the assessee. Notice u/s.142(1) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- 4. Cavere Trading Private Limited - Confirmation already submitted on 12.03.2013 5. Shamshad Ahmed Rs.6,00,000/- As regards the first three names, the appellant claims these to be transferred shares from an existing shareholder. The AO is directed to verify the transfer from the transfer documents, and if found correct, no addition can be sustained. As regards filing of confirmation in respect of Cavere Trading P Ltd., the appellant has not filed it before the AO in assessment proceedings or even in remand proceedings, and I now seeking to have the same admitted, albeit without furnishing any justification whatsoever as to why the same were not furnished / produced before the A.O. Since the exceptions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of capital in nature. The learned representative of the assessee has argued that the assessee was in the business of courier services and had opened branches all over India and the branches were taken on leave and license basis and appellant incurred renovation expenditure as to make it workable. Therefore, the appellant claimed renovation expenses of Rs. 23,66,226/- which was treated by the Assessing Officer as capital in nature whereas the same should be treated as revenue in nature in view of the law settled in Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 324 (Mad.) and CIT Vs. Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 132 (T & AP) and ACIT Vs. Sarkar Jewellers P. Ltd. (2014) 33 ITR (Trib) 16 (Ahd.). However, on the other hand, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. ISSUE NO.5 &6:- 9. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the confirmation of the disallowance of residential renovation expenses of Rs. 10,49,879/- treating the same as expenditure not for the purpose of business. The assessee claimed that the said premises was belonging to the one of the Director and was renovated during the relevant assessment year, therefore, the renovation expenses of Rs. 10,49,879/- is liable to be allowed and alternatively the assessee claimed the 10% of depreciation on this amount. The Assessing Officer declined the same on the ground that no business connection was established in connection with Directors. No evidence of any ki....