9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. Since the payment was made directly by the holding company and not through the assessee, the entry did not find place in the accounts of the assessee. In the books of the account of the holding company, it is reflected as security deposit. Subsequently, it was transferred from the security deposit to the assessee's account in the next year. Therefore, the amount being advance given by the holding company directly to the landlord on behalf of the assessee, was transferred to the assessee's account subsequently. We also note that no profit element is involved in this transaction which is in fact an advance given to the assessee through the security deposit route and deserve to be deleted. Accordingly, we delete the addition - Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound raised by the asseseee is reproduced as under:- 1. The addition of ₹ 6 crore by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, unjustified and ex-facie illegal and deserve to be deleted as the impugned receipt has already been taxed u/s. 143(3) on 20.12.2010 in AY 2008-09 in the hands of M/s Sports Station India Pvt. Ltd., i.e., the holding company of the appellant. 3. Ld. Counsel of the Assessee requested that keeping in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NTPC 229 ITR 383 (SC) (Supra), the additional ground raised by the assessee may be admitted and decided first. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR strongly opposed the admission of additional ground (legal) raised by the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.2011. 7. Against the Order of the AO, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 09.7.2012 has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 8. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee is in Appeal before the Tribunal for challenging the issue raised vide additional as well as the addition in dispute. 9. At the time of hearing, with regard to Ground No. 2 and additional ground, as aforesaid, are concerned, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that the addition of ₹ 6 Crore made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, unjustified and ex-facie illegal and deserves to be deleted as the impugned receipt has already been taxed u/s. 143(3) on 20.12.2010 in AY 2008- 09 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the present case, because we cannot go beyond the issue in dispute, and therefore, we are deciding the issue in dispute, after hearing both the parties and according to the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities as well as the provisions of law. As far as additional ground and ground no. 2, as aforesaid, are concerned, we note that these grounds are relating to addition of ₹ 6 crore made in the hands of the assessee which has already been taxed in the hands of its holding company rendering the impugned addition as ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. The holding company i.e. M/s Sports Station India Pvt. Ltd. filed its return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 30/09/2008 before the Addl. CIT, Range -9, New Delhi. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aik vs ITO, (2013) 21 ITR(Trib.) 0252 (Mum) Conclusion: Where income i.e. Capital gains from sale of ancestral property and interest on mutual funds has been shown by HUF and has been accepted by the department, same cannot be assessed in the individual capacity 11.3 In the case of DCIT vs. Standard Fireworks (P) Ltd. (2010) 128 TTJ 0001 (Chennai) TM 1 .However, at the same time, one of the cardinal principles of taxation is that same income cannot be taxed twice .. 11.4 In the case of Suresh K Jajoo Vs. ACIT (2010) 39 SOT 514 (Mum) 31 .The Hon ble Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and held that the sum of RS. 3,12,500/- already assessed for the asstt. Year 1959-60, could not again be assessed for the asstt. Year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e payment was made directly by the holding company and not through the assessee, the entry did not find place in the accounts of the assessee. In the books of the account of the holding company, it is reflected as security deposit. Subsequently, it was transferred from the security deposit to the assessee's account in the next year. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the amount of ₹ 42,75,600/-, being advance given by the holding company directly to the landlord on behalf of the assessee, was transferred to the assessee's account subsequently. We also note that no profit element is involved in this transaction which is in fact an advance given to the assessee through the security deposit route and deserve to be deleted. Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
