2017 (12) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome Tax (Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi relevant to assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence, the Appeals and Cross Objections were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with Revenue's Appeal being ITA No. 5026/Del/2015 (AY 2006-07). 2. The following are the grounds raised in assessment year 2006-07 by the Revenue in its Appeal. However, in other appeals the grounds are same, except the difference in the figures. "1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the overseas companies in which the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the overseas companies treating them as residents in India u/s 6(3) of the LT. Act, there was no reason of occasion or an issue to assess the same in the hands of the appellant on protective basis. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has. erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 371,32,83,664/ made by Assessing Officer. 7. The order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of' the hearing of the appeal." 3. The following are the grounds raised in the assessment year 2007- 08 by the Assessee in the Cross Objection. However, in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....make any addition on substantive basis. However, additions were made on protective basis holding that profits of all the overseas companies as mentioned in the assessment order are to be taxed in India on the ground that these overseas company were treating as "Resident" in India in accordance with the provisions laid in section 6(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and also held that since so far none of the overseas companies have admitted to be in the jurisdiction of India and they have not filed valid return and paid taxes thereon, therefore, in order to protect the interest of revenue protective addition in respect to the income of the overseas companies for AY 2006-07 of Rs. 371,34,13,346/- was made in the hands of the assessee and income o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t addition which was made on substantive basis in the hands of the overseas companies was also made in the hands of Sh. Ajay Kalsi on protective basis and also the same amount was added to the income of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, addition of the same amount was made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of three persons i.e. (a) the overseas companies, (b) Sh. Ajay Kalsi and (c) Smt. Mala Kalsi which was unwarranted and unjustified. The additions made in case of the overseas companies u/s 6(3) is not relevant to the case of the assessee as she is only a shareholder, and was not entitled to derive any benefit. During the year under consideration the assessee did not derive any benefit for which she is liable to pay taxes th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... discussed the facts pertaining to the protective addition in detail and deleted the entire protective addition made by the Assessing Officer in his case. Since, the facts of the assessee's case are similar to those of her husband, the reasons given by the Ld. CIT(A) in his above order in the case of Sh. Ajay Kalsi will apply mutatis mutandis in the case of the assessee also. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on protective basis amounting to Rs. 3,71,32,83,664/- was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. 7. In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 8. Following the consis....