9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1097 - AT - Income TaxAddition of amount in respect of credit entry received - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - No infirmity in such deletion of addition made by CIT(A), keeping in view of this particular fact that the three limbs of Section 68 of the Act has duly been discharged by the assessee. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the said order passed by the Learned CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. Addition u/s 68 - advance received - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Copy of balance sheet of the assessee company for A.Ys. 2010-11 2011-12 alongwith confirmation were also verified which establishes the fact of advance given and received back from the above parties as also observed by the First Appellate Authority, upon verification of the above documents placed before him. It is relevant to mention that those documents have also been verified by us and the Ld. DR has not been able to controvert such facts borne out from the records placed before us. As it is a fact that the assessee had duly accounted for the said transaction in its books of accounts and when the said parties had confirmed the same, no addition can be said to be justifiable on account of receiving back the advances so given in earlier year in the present facts and circumstances of the case as observed by the Ld. CIT(A) is found to be proper, without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. We confirm the same. The grounds of appeal preferred by Revenue, is therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and, thus, dismissed. Short term capital gain - same amount treated as income under business head - HELD THAT - Shares as investment has also been shown in its balance sheet and the assessee has offered the same as short term capital gain under the head income from capital gain . The entire set of details have also been filed before us by the assessee. As the said income has been offered in its return by the assessee, the addition made by the Ld.AO on the same amount treating the same as income under business head tantamounts to double taxation. Since, the same has already been offered for taxation by the assessee company, the addition, in our considered opinion, has been rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons above. Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Settlement of Assessee's Appeal under VSV Scheme. 2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 37,89,000/- under Section 68 of the IT Act. 3. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 22,54,71,970/- under Section 68 of the IT Act. 4. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 1,62,30,000/- under Section 68 of the IT Act. 5. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 18,84,23,265/- under Section 68 of the IT Act. 6. Treatment of Rs. 28,89,064/- as Short Term Capital Gains. Summary: 1. Settlement of Assessee's Appeal under VSV Scheme: The assessee's appeal was settled under the VSV Scheme, leading to its dismissal as withdrawn. 2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 37,89,000/- under Section 68 of the IT Act: The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 37,89,000/- added under Section 68 for a credit entry from M/s Maxworth Leafin & Investment Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) found that the assessee provided sufficient evidence, including balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, and confirmation from the creditor. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transaction. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the deletion of the addition. 3. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 22,54,71,970/- under Section 68 of the IT Act: The revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 22,54,71,970/- added under Section 68 for credit entries from three parties. The CIT(A) observed that the transactions related to the sale of shares in the previous assessment year (A.Y. 2010-11), and the assessee provided adequate documentation, including confirmations, bank statements, and balance sheets. The CIT(A) held that no addition could be made for the current year as the transactions pertained to the earlier year. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. 4. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 1,62,30,000/- under Section 68 of the IT Act: The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 1,62,30,000/- added under Section 68 for amounts received against advances given. The CIT(A) verified the documents, including balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, confirmations, and bank statements, and found that the transactions were genuine. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the deletion of the addition. 5. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 18,84,23,265/- under Section 68 of the IT Act: The revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 18,84,23,265/- added under Section 68 for amounts received against the sale of yellow peas. The CIT(A) verified the invoices, bank details, and ledger accounts and found that the transactions were genuine and already reflected in the assessee's profit and loss account. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the deletion of the addition. 6. Treatment of Rs. 28,89,064/- as Short Term Capital Gains: The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 28,89,064/- treated as business income instead of short-term capital gains. The CIT(A) verified the details of the share transactions, including contract notes and balance sheet entries, and found that the assessee had correctly offered the income as short-term capital gains. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the deletion of the addition. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested issues.
|
