AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1042
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e following grounds: "1. The CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 97,38,26,400/- on account of long term capital gain. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,13,90,550/- on account of unverifiable expenses. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,83,650/- on account of inadmissible expenses. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of expenses of Rs. 34,90,243/- in respect of expenses relating to year. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....books at Rs. 485 Crores prox), and were sold at Rs. 668 Crores (Approx.). All these shares were sold to the three new companies, e.g. Sahara green realtors P. Ltd., Sahara Flagship Real Estates P. Ltd. and Sahara Property Construction P. Ltd., claimed to be the subsidiary companies of assessee company. These LTCG were claimed by the assessee company as exempt from Income Tax, claiming that these, transactions were not to be treated as transfer in view of provisions of s. 47(iv) of the Act. 5. All three subsidiary companies, Sahara green realtors P. Ltd., Sahara Flagship Real Estates P. Ltd. and Sahara Property Construction P. Ltd,to whom the shares were sold by the assessee company, were incorporated during the F.Y. 2007-08 itself, which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Roy and two companies M/s.Sahara India Infrastructure &Housing Limited &M/s.Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited.; that after the formation of the three companies all these shares of the share holders were transferred in the name of M/s.Sahara Prime City Limited, i.e. the appellant company and the shares held by M/s.Sahara Prime City Limited were transferred in joint name of assessee company and one individual each mentioned in sub para (b) above; and that in the month of January, 2008 the shares of M/s.SICCL which were held by the appellant company have been sold to these three newly formed companies which has resulted in long term capital gain at Rs. 97,38,26,400/- after indexation which has been claimed as exempted under section 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....point to be observed is that all three subsidiary companies were formed during F. Y. 2007-08 itself, which is the F.Y under consideration, just in a span of three days i.e. on 9th, 11th and 12th Oct. 2007 and initially the shares were held by Sh. Subrata Roy, and other three individuals, the total paid up capital of three companies was just Rs. 15L, however the shares of M/s SICCL were sold by the assessee company to these three companies at a whooping price of Rs. 668 Crores. 10. Per contra, the submission of the AR is that law does not permit the authorities to entertain such suspicion or doubt in view of the clear provision of section 47(iv) r.w.s. 45 of the Act. He submitted that the in the light of the law in section 47(iv), the fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocess of sale of shares by holding company to the subsidiary company cannot be subjected to capital gain u/s 45 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find anything illegal or irregular in the finding of the Learned CIT(A) and accordingly they are confirmed. 13. Now coming to the second addition, it relates to the addition of Rs. 1,13,90,550/- in respect of the professional expenses on the ground that those are not verifiable. By placing reliance on the report of the auditors in form 3CD, Learned AO were called for the details of the professional expenses and held that if the liability of these expenses was received by the assessee on transfer from its sister concern M/s. Sahara India, the assessee company which is claiming the expenses in it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... opinion that no interference is warranted with such finding. We, accordingly find this ground of appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 17. The fourth ground of appeal is in respect of the deletion of Rs. 58,365/- made by the Learned AO u/s 14A of the Act, the facts are that the Assessing Officer disallowed 10% of the dividend income earned by the assessee as expenditure relatable to earning of such income by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts remains that the assessee claimed to have disallowed such amount voluntarily, but these submissions were overlooked by the Learned AO. Learned CIT(A), however, observed that since the assessee had already disallowed the relatable expenditure voluntar....