9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t found reflected in the balance-sheet of the donor which was wrong presumption. The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT (Appeals)) that the assessee had demonstrate the genuineness of the transaction as also the reliability and creditworthiness of the donor. Such being the facts, no question of law arises. - Tax Appeal No. 676 of 2017 To Tax Appeal No. 680 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2017 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. BIREN VAISHNAV, JJ. For The Appellant : Mrs Mauna M Bhatt, Advocate For The Opponent : Mr B S Soparkar, Advocate ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. These appeals involve the same group of assesses and also similar questions. We may therefore, record facts from Tax Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the CIT (Appeals) referred to and relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of Associated Industrial Development reported in 82 ITR 586 as also the CBDT circular dated 15.06.2007 highlighting that whether a particular holding of shares, by way of investment or forms part of the stock-in-trade, is a matter which is within the knowledge of the assessee who holds the shares and it should, in normal circumstances, be in a position to produce evidence from its records as to whether it has maintained any distinction between those shares which are stock-in-trade and those which are held by way of investment. The Tribunal also referred to the recent circular of CBDT dated 29.02.2016 in which the guidelines have been provided for de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no interference. 5. The second question pertains to deletion of addition of ₹ 20 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer had made the additions only on the presumption that the loan was not found reflected in the balance-sheet of the donor which was wrong presumption. The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT (Appeals)) that the assesse had demonstrate the genuineness of the transaction as also the reliability and creditworthiness of the donor. Such being the facts, no question of law arises. 6. In Tax Appeal No. 678 of 2017 there is a minor difference in facts. In the present case, also the assessee had sold the shares and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
