TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her on the facts and circumstances of the case and on law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.20 crore being amount of share application money received by the assessee during the year?" 3. The respondent had filed its return of income for the subject assessment year on 26.6.2008 declaring of total income of Rs. 64.60 lacs. During the course of the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the respondent had received share application money of Rs. 2.20 crore during the year under assessment. The respondent substantiated its claim of share application money of Rs. 2.20 crore received from M/s. Speed Trade Securities Pvt Ltd ("STSPL" for short) by filing Board resolution and a letter from STSPL. The re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for short). However, by order dated 9.5.2012, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal upholding the view of the Assessing Officer and inter alia placing reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of McDowell & Co Ltd Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) as being applicable to the facts of this case, thus, dismissing the respondent's appeal. 5. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order, noted the fact that the respondent assessee received share application money from STSPL through proper banking channel amounting to Rs. 2.20 crore (being 50% of subscribed 22 lakhs equity shares) @ Rs. 20/- per equity share which comprises of face value of Rs. 10/- and premium of Rs. 10/- per share. The balance 50% was to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e aforesaid view, the impugned order held that the investment of Rs. 2.20 crore by M/s. STSPL on the basis of evidence on record was established, as the identity, capacity and genuineness stood proved. In the above view, the impugned order allowed the respondent assessee's appeal. 6. Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the Revenue seeks interference by this Court by relying upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In particular, our attention was drawn to the fact that when STSPL had large amount of funds available with it on 31.3.2009, there was no reason for it not to give a balance amount of Rs. 2.20 crore and so as to save its earlier investment of Rs. 2.20 crore. 7. We note that the fin....