9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons who are alleged to have really advanced the money is sought to be reopened, that would have made some sense but we fail to understand as to how this amount of increased share capital can be assessed in the hands of the company itself - Assessing Officer did not make any enquiries with regard to the genuineness of the subscribers to the share capital - Tribunal came to a conclusion on facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounts were closed on June 30,1981. The capital of the company consisting of 2,00,000 shares of Rs. 10 each amounting to Rs. 20,00,000. The company received Rs. 3,05,500 as share application money. The Assessing Officer did not allow certain expenditure in view of the fact that there was no income of the company during the first year. It is also noted that certain confirmation letters in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in the case of Steller Investment Ltd. Following its decision, the Tribunal, hearing the appeal of the assessee, allowed the same on March 22,1990, against which the Revenue submitted an application being R. A. No. 884/ (Delhi) of 1990, inter alia, requesting the Tribunal to refer the case to the High Court. However, the same was rejected. The Revenue, thereafter, moved the High Court under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t company, and that the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiries with regard to the genuineness of the subscribers to the share capital. While confirming the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, the Division Bench held as under: "It is evident that even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, nevertheless, under no circumstances, can the amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 251 ITR 263 disposed of the appeal by passing the following order: "We have read the question which the High Court answered against the Revenue. We are in agreement with the High Court. Plainly, the Tribunal came to a conclusion on facts and no interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs." It is in view of this, the question framed need not be answered. The refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
