Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (4) TMI 1317 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Deletion of disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Deletion of addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition Made Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of ?2,67,55,708/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the assessee used a colorable device to avail benefits under Section 10(38). The AO contended that the assessee's transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares were not genuine and were meant to create unexplained cash credits. The assessee had purchased 36,000 shares of M/s BND Limited in cash, which later amalgamated into M/s Vindus Holding Limited. The shares were sold on the Kolkata Stock Exchange, and the sale proceeds were credited to the assessee's account.

The CIT(A) found that the transactions were genuine, supported by contract notes, Demat account statements, and confirmations from brokers and the Kolkata Stock Exchange. The AO's suspicion was based on surmises and conjectures without substantial evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO failed to prove the transactions were not genuine and that the addition under Section 68 was not justified.

2. Deletion of Disallowance Under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The AO disallowed ?42,420/- under Section 14A, contending that the assessee had investments likely to earn tax-free income. The assessee argued that it had sufficient owned funds and did not earn any tax-free income during the year. The CIT(A) relied on the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment in Lakhani Marketing Ltd., which held that no disallowance under Section 14A could be made if no tax-free income was earned. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that Rule 8D is a computational mechanism and cannot override the provisions of the Act.

3. Deletion of Disallowance Under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act:
The AO disallowed ?6,22,958/- as interest on loans and advances, arguing that the assessee did not charge interest on certain loans and failed to substantiate business expediency. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for loans to Upinderjeet Kaur, Rajeev Aggarwal, and Surinder Goyal, finding that interest was charged but mistakenly recorded as loans and advances. However, the disallowance for loans to Anju Bhatia and Ishan Aggarwal was upheld, as the assessee could not substantiate business expediency. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision, as the disallowance was based on factual errors corrected by the assessee.

4. Deletion of Addition Under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act:
The AO added ?16,10,000/- under Section 69, arguing that the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposits in his bank account. The assessee explained that the cash deposits were from the sale of land, duly recorded in the cash book. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not detail why the explanation was unacceptable and that the cash flow statement was not incorrect. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO's contention lacked merit and the addition was not justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions and disallowances made by the AO under Sections 68, 14A, 36(1)(iii), and 69 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the AO's findings were based on suspicion and conjectures without substantial evidence, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to support the genuineness of the transactions.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates