TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)] is wrong, bad in law & Void-Ab-initio. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/AO grossly erred in holding that the assessment for the year under consideration need not be based upon seized incriminating material while framing the assessment u/s 153c of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act"). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the impugned assessment order and rejecting the objection of appellant that the approval of Addl. CIT u/s 153BD of the Act being mechanical and without application of the mind. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition Rs. 63.54,632/-being not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been brought to tax under the head "income from other sources". 5. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition on the grounds that the assessee is benefited by way of having the deposit still lying with him. 6. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the hearing before us, the ld. AR vehemently argued that there is no concept of notional interest to be taxed on the security deposit received by the assessee as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. Relying on the judgment in the case of Godhra Electrical Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) and Highways Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 199 ITR 702 (Gau), he argued that in the absence of any real income or accrual of income, notional interest cannot be brought to ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. It was also argued that the confirmations submitted by the assessee that Sh. K. Leelawati W/o Late Sh. K. Krishnan is the owner of Karina Airlines International Ltd. is incorrect as the owner is Sh. Sandeep Singhania as per the information received from the competent authority of Singapore. Hence , the entire transaction is a "Sham transaction" and the AO has rightly brought the amount to taxation. To a pertinent question asked by the bench as to the fate of the amount of Rs. 5.29 crores received as advance and its treatment as per the provisions of income tax, the Ld. DR could not reply. 9. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The issue before us is whether the notional interest i....