TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The revenue has preferred the present appeal assailing the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: 'E' New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), passed in ITA No. 5658/Del/2015 on 18.12.2024, whereby its appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)') dated 28.07.2015 was rejected. 2. Narrated in a nutshell, the facts germane for the present case are that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'AO') had made an addition of Rs. 55 crores under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1961') against the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, alleging that investment made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough the record, additional evidence which the assessee had produced during the course of appeal being audited accounts of M/s Redfort India Real Estate Fund II LLC, Mauritius, being parent investor of the original investor companies, who had invested in respondent-company. Apart from the above, the CIT(A) dealt with the material, which the assessee had produced before the AO and then recorded a categorical finding that these two companies of Mauritius and Cyprus had entered into an agreement with the respondent-assessee due to which even the name of respondent was changed. He noted that an interest@16%p.a. or 16% coupon was paid on the CCDs. 6. The revenue challenged the said order passed by the Appellate Authority before the Tribunal,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven by the assessee, the AO deliberately did not deal with the same. He took the Court through para nos. 2 and 3 of the assessment order and pointed out that the AO had made reference of TPO's report and he had recorded that the TPO had given no adverse report, so also the fact that the assessee had produced in evidence, copy of agreement between the investor companies and the respondent-assessee. He argued that the factum of 16% CCDs was known to the AO and yet, he had completely ignored such fact and dealt with only that part, which suited his view point rather whims, while ignoring the reply, which served the cause of the respondent-assessee. 10. He, thereafter, took the Court through the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sociation and Memorandum of Association were also revised. It was also found that on execution of the agreement, both the foreign investors invested money in the assessee company-New Dimension Holdings Ltd., Mauritius acquired 25.9% shares of the respondent-company for Rs. 5,70,50,000/-, while Velford Ventures Ltd., Cyprus acquired 14 shares of the respondent-assessee for Rs.2,03,000/- and invested Rs. 49,90,47,000/- in CCDs issued by the respondent-company. It was also found that both these companies are registered in Mauritius and Cyprus, and are taxpayers in their respective jurisdiction. The CIT(A) has also recorded that the respondent-assessee had also filed before the AO, copies of the prescribed Certificate of Foreign Inward Remittan....