9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed share application money of ₹ 10 lakhs from one Sri Devender Parashar. AO made necessary enquiry in this regard from the assessee. However he was not satisfied with the replies. The AO observed that it is found from the documents in respect of share application for ₹ 10 lakhs from Shri Devender Singh was full of contradiction. The AO observed that the name of the party was not clear. He further observed that no documentary evidence has been furnished to establish his credit worthiness to have advanced ₹ 10 lakhs to the assessee. The only documentary evidence found in the form of pay slip for 2007 was furnished and the same was rejected by the A.O. 4. Upon assessee s appeal the ld.CIT(A) considered the issue and held a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant have already been discussed earlier in this order. In my considered opinion the appellant has satisfactorily replied to all the doubts raised by the applicant. In any case an addition cannot be made merely on the basis of doubts/surmises when the appellant has furnished necessary documentary evidence in support of its claim. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the detailed submissions made by the appellant and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by it. I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has successfully established the identity and credit worthiness of the creditor by way of filing his confirmation and salary slips. The genuineness of the transaction ahs been proved by furnishing copies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the company. Therefore, in the background of aforesaid discussion, we find that the addition made in this regard is not to be sustained. Ld.CIT(A) is correct in holding that the addition needs to be deleted. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of ld.CIT(A) and we uphold the same. In the 6. Another issue raised is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 43,003/- made on account of disallowance of business expenses. 7. On this issue the AO observed that assessee has not carried out any business activity other than investing money in shares and earning dividend income and booking capital gains on sale of investment. Assessee earned dividend income of ₹ 29,975/- and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing charges, printing and stationery expenses, legal and professional charges, audit fees, filing fees etc. which are compulsory to ensure the existence and continuation of the company. The quantum of the said expenditure has been found to be bare minimum. The ld.AR has relied upon the recent decision of the ITAT, Delhi I Bench in the case of ITO vs Mokul Fin.P.Ltd. whereby it has been held that the expenditure which are necessary for running the organization are allowable even if there is no business activity. In the case of CIT vs Ganga Properties Ltd. (1993) 199 ITR 94 (Cal) it has observed that a limited company deriving income from other sources has to maintain its establishment for complying with statutory obligations so long it is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
