Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (4) TMI 2143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as the ld. First Appellate Authority or 'the Ld. FAA' for short) in Appeals No.IT/290/E/KNL/2018-19 and IT/289/E/KNL/2018-19 arising out of the appeals before it against the orders dated 31.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). The assessee has filed Cross Objections for the respective assessment years also. The facts and impugned decision for AY 2011-12 are taken into consideration and as facts in two appeals are common and discussion will apply pari materia to facts for appeal for AY 2012-13. 2. On hearing both the sides and after taking into consideration the copy of assessment order for AY ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO and others 236 ITR (SC) (1999) that "in determining whether commencement of re assessment proceedings was valid, it has only to be seen whether there was, prima facie, some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage." On merits, it is observed that there was no business activity in the investor company and that the directors of the assessee company as well as the Investor company are the same. The Directors of this company failed to respond to summons issued u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 to substantiate their claim of investment from the said investor company. This fact proves tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... stated that the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness of the householders. However, in the reply filed before the A.O. on 20.12.2018, it is seen that the assessee had furnished the following evidences: 1. Share application, 2. Copy of confirmation of shareholders alongwith their PANs and place of assessment, 3. Copy of Bank statement, 4. Copy of Balance Sheet and P & L A/c of the shareholders, 5. Copy of resolution regarding allotment of shares, 6. Copy of the M.O.A. and A.O.A. of the shareholders, 7. Copy of certificate of incorporation of the shareholders which contained the change in name and 8. Copy of the ITRs of the subscribers to the share ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ati Rice Ltd. Both the entities are assessed to tax in Karnal Range and even the share of assessment of the assessee company was found by the A.O. of R. P. Basmati Rice Ltd. whose case was also reopened by the respective A.O. for Α.Υ. 2011-12 on the similar issue of share application money received, which was from the assessee company only. While making the addition of share capital received from the company, the A.O. of R. P. Basmati Rice Ltd. has held as under: "All the facts mentioned above only go to highlight the bogusness of the transaction made by the assessee company. In this case, the entire cycle of routing accommodation entries has been coming from Bharat Hospital Ltd. through share premium from shell / pap....