9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he orders dated 25.09.1992 and 29.07.1993. Therefore, in such a settlement, there is no question of paying any extra money to other group outside the books of account - AO has made the addition only on the basis of presumption, surmises and conjunctures and is not based on cogent material on record – Decided against the Revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 176 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2013 - Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma And Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,JJ. For the Appellant : D. D. Chopra ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against the judgment and order dated 16.06.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in ITA No.1492/Alld/97, for the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO opined that the market rate was Rs.300/- per share. According to the AO, while M/s. Malva Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd., has transferred/sold the shares to the company Group No. 1, to which assessee company belongs, is involved in unaccounted transaction. So, he made the addition for the difference by observing that the assessee has paid extra price outside the books of account for purchasing the said shares below the market price. Lastly, the AO by taking into account the difference between the cost of acquisition of shares by the assessee and the market price of the shares of M/s. Malva Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd., added the same to the total income of the assessee. However, the first appellate authority has deleted the addition by o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee that it was part of the group does not hold good as the Board of Directors incharge of the affairs of the management do not belong to the mentioned group. It is also a submission of the learned counsel that no managing rights over the shares were transferred and remained with the three Directors only. Further, the fact that the assessee company, was dealing in shares, as its main object cannot be said not to have been benefited in the form of indirect receipt of undisclosed income without any consideration even if the contentions of the assessee are taken on face value. The Tribunal has simply brushed aside the well reasoned order of the Assessing Officer without assigning any reason. He relied on the ratio laid down in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
