9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed questions of law for our consideration: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,53,50,000/under Section 68 of the Act being share capital/share premium received during the year when the Assessing Officer held the same as unexplained cash credit? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in restricting the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act only to the amount of expenditure claimed by the assessee in the absence of any such restriction under Section 14A and/or Rule 8D?" 3. Regarding question no.(i): (a) During the previous relevant to the subject Assessment Year the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o decide and not a subject of enquiry by the Revenue. Finally he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v/s. Lovely Exports (P)Ltd. 317 ITR 218 to hold that if the amounts have been subscribed by bogus shareholders it is for the Revenue to proceed against such shareholders. Therefore it held the Assessing Officer was not justified in adding the amount of share capital subscription including the share premium as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act. (c) Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue in the appeal to the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal holds that the respondent-assessee had established the identity, genuineness and capacity of the shareholders who had subscribed to its shares. The identity w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Section 68 of the Act as in force during the subject years has to be read/understood as though the proviso added subsequently effective only from 1st April, 2013 was its normal meaning. The Parliament did not introduce to proviso to Section 68 of the Act with retrospective effect nor does the proviso so introduced states that it was introduced "for removal of doubts" or that it is "declaratory". Therefore it is not open to give it retrospective effect, by proceeding on the basis that the addition of the proviso to Section 68 of the Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of Section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso. In any view of the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
