9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... framed the following questions of law for determination: (1) Whether learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,57,50,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained increase in shares capital? (2) Whether learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,98,774 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained increase in sundry creditors? (3) Whether learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of 50% expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,97,34,214 made by the Assessing Officer under different head of profit and loss acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies of accounts and bank statements furnished by the Assessee to the AO. The AO has not disapproved/doubted "the identity and the genuinely of the subscribers." The CIT(A) accordingly concluded that "all ingredients of Section 68 stands satisfied as far as the receipt of share application money by the Assessee company is concerned." Accordingly, the CIT(A) deleted the additions on this account. 5. The ITAT has, in the impugned order dated 31st July 2009, upheld the order of the CIT (A) while relying on the decision of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Limited (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195. The above finding is purely factual and no materials have been placed on record by the Revenue to counter this factual finding or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to controvert the factual finding. The Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the ITAT. Question No. 3: Concerning the 50% disallowance of total expenses claimed under the head of the profit and loss account amounting to Rs. 1,97,35,214. 7. The CIT (A) deleted the disallowance on the ground that the AO had not spelt out any basis for making the 50% disallowance and that there was no justification for such a huge addition. The ITAT agreed with the CIT (A) that no case for making ad hoc disallowance was made by the AO. The Revenue is not able to persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order of the ITAT which appears to be on a sound legal basis. Question No. 4: Concerning stock in trade being shown in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
