2018 (6) TMI 1058

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ding the decision of CIT [A] in deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,00,00,000/= under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the facts that identity and credit worthiness of subscribers to lender company remained unverified ?" {B} "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is right in upholding the decision of the CIT [A] without appreciating the facts that just before giving loan to assessee, the lender company M/s. Raj Capital & Finance Private Limited received lot of amount from family members of Bhutra Family of Surat and there is substantial amount of cash deposits in the bank accounts of subscribers of lender Company ?" {C} "Whether on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heet indicating sufficient reserves, surplus and share premium as followed by repayment in succeeding assessment year. Learned Departmental Representative fails to rebut CIT (A)'s conclusion that the assessee has been having regular loan transactions with the said entity. We notice in this backdrop that Hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in DCIT v. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) upholding tribunal's conclusion deleting Section 68 addition in view of identitical details; squarely applies here. So in their lordships' latter decision in CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxman.com 251(Guj) confirming this tribunal's another decision reversing Section 68 addition wherein the department head accepted repayment....