9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money - AO observed that the companies existed only on paper and the identity and creditworthiness of the companies who allegedly had paid the share application money and the genuineness of the transaction had not been proved - Held that:- in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. STELLAR INVESTMENT LTD.(1991 -TMI - 22311 - DELHI High Court), which judgement has been confirmed by the Honourable Apex Court in (2000 -TMI - 40317 - SUPREME Court). - Decided against the revenue. - 495 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2011 - Mr.Justice P.JYOTHIMANI, Mr.Justice P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar JUDGMENT P.JYOTHIMANI., J. The Revenue has preferred this tax case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has disallowed the claim of the assesee made under Section 80IB of the Act and has also made addition of Rs.1,20,00,000/- as unexplained credit, under Section 68 of the Act, on the ground that for the purpose of claiming deduction, the assessee did not file necessary certificate in Form 10CCB of the Act along with the return of income, which was filed on 18.7.2005 declaring the income as Rs.1,02,11,036/-. 3. As against the disallowance of the claim, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellate authority has allowed the appeal, thereby granting the claim of the assessee made under Section 80IB of the Act. It was against the said order, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. 6. That is also the consistent view of the other High Courts, including the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sivanand Electronics-(1994)209 ITR 63(Bom), apart from Gujarat High Court in zenith Processing Mills v. CIT-(1996) 219 ITR 721 and Panjab and Haryana High Court in CIT V. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631. 7. The Culcutta High Court in the case in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. BERGER PAINTS (INDIA) LTD (NO.2) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr.T.Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
