TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act') for Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. The Revenue has questioned the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of IT Rules by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. On this aspect, we have heard both the parties. We do not find any strong submission on behalf of the Revenue on this count of admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Rather the Ld. DR chose to counter the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on merit. Hence, this ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed. 4. On merit, the deletion of addition made on the following counts has been challenged before us by the Revenue: i. Rs.23,67,56,210/- on account of outstanding for A.Y.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain in respect of the transaction of sale of shares as claimed by the assessee. The Ld. AO further made the addition of Rs.2,86,40,600/- in respect of share capital/share application, money treating the same as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. So far as the first two additions are concerned these were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) on 07.03.2018. Hence, the instant appeal preferred by the Revenue before us. 8. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. The Ld. AO made the addition of Rs.1,48,92,31,583/-. The brief facts leading to this case is that the assessee in the year under consideration received certain amounts from various p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar. As the result whereof the assessee's case made out to this effect that the said amount could not be added in the hands of the assessee in the current year as the same was not received in the current year seems to be acceptable. 12. Having regard to the acceptance made by the Ld. AO in regard to the facts as narrated hereinabove, the addition was not found to be sustainable and therefore, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). We do not find any ambiguity in such order of deletion of addition for the reason already discussed hereinabove. The same is, therefore, upheld. 13. We further find that the remand report contains the acceptance of the Ld. AO of this particular fact of receiving advance and/or loan from various parties by the assessee to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entries cannot be considered as total income of the assessee company. As the Ld. AO has duly examined the debit and credit entry in the bank statement and admitted in its remand report that the assessee duly accounted the said transaction in the books of accounts, the addition made by the Ld. AO has been found to be not sustainable and, therefore, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) found to be justified without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. This ground of appeal is, thus, dismissed. 16. The deletion of addition of Rs.13,53,654/- on account of short term capital gain upon treating it as business income is the subject matter before us. 17. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties, we have also perused th....