TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 952
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er in passing an order u/s. 143(3) of the Act which is illegal and bad in law hence the same deserves to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,60,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of Sale of Share Premium and Share Capital. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the alternative addition of Rs. 9,16,75,676/- made by the Assessing officer on protective basis u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act would only be for academic purpose and there is no requirement for adjudicating the said issue as the substantive addition of Rs. 9,60,00,000/- made by A.O. u/s. 68 of the Act has already been confirmed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- which comprises lease hold land premium of Rs. 4,68,00,000/-. The land area is 40,985/- sq. mt. The prevailing government rate is Rs. 2045 sq. mt accordingly, the value of land should be considered to Rs. 8,27,91,825/-. In the assessee's case land value has been increased by Rs. 3,59,91,825/- post adjustment of certain CWIP expenses, the valuer has determined fair market value of shares and accordingly, the allotment took place. The assessee company also submitted before the Assessing Officer that the investor M/s. MG finvest Pvt. Ltd. transferred shares of the assessee company in subsequent years. However, the assessee company submitted that the shares of the assessee firm were not transferred at loss, the assessee company extracted info....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dismissed the appeal of the assessee being repetitive, hence infructous. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessment order is passed in the name of the old name and in fact on 15-09- 2017, the assessee has informed the amalgamation of Shalby Surat Hospital Pvt. Ltd. which amalgamated with Shalby Ltd. to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer submitted that the assessment itself bad in law. As regards merits of the case, the ld. A.R. submitted that the vide order dated 09-10-2023 CIT(A) has decided the case on merit thereby stating that the assessee while filing the response to the Assessing Officer (show cause reply) had booking stamp of NSH Surat meaning the assessee had itself sent the reply in the name of investor c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout paying any taxes on the entire transactions and merely the change of name cannot be treated as the actual transfer of shares. Thus, the addition and the valuation made by the Assessing Officer is justified and hence on merit the case of the assessee does not survive. The decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Inox Wind Energy Ltd. vs. ACIT 454 ITR 162, Adani Wilmer Ltd. vs. ACIT 456 ITR 551 and Anokhi Reality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2023) 153 taxmann.com 275 all these decisions by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in respect of non-existing company where the assessee has properly informed the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has passed the Assessment order in the name of non-exiting company. But in the present ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... than the business of circumlocution of funds as has been analysed by the AO in detail in para 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 of the assessment order. M G Finvest had filed return with negligible income, therefore, there was no financial capacity with the investor per-se to invest huge amount. Further, the AO conducted due enquiries for verifying the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the investor. It is to highlight that M.G. Finvest did not respond to the 133(6) notice issued by the AO. The AO has categorically noted in para 4.3.2 of the assessment order that the reply received in response to 133(6) notice was after issuance of show cause notice to the assessee and that the response had booking stamp of NSH Surat meaning that th....