9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I 64 - SUPREME COURT) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court in decisions in the cases of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr (2003 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT) and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of INdia & Anr. (2012 (1) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) also held that principles laid down in the case of McDowell (supra) is not applicable across the board to discard an act which is valid in law upon some hypothetical assessment of the real motive of the assessee . Thus, imputing a plan on the part of the respondent assessee and STSPL to evade tax without any supporting evidence in the face of the detailed facts recorded by the impugned order of the Tribunal, is not justified. - Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STSPL. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the same on the ground that the board resolution of STSPL mentions that it will pay 50% of the share application money i.e ₹ 2.20 crore and if the balance 50% of share application money is not paid before 30.9.2008, the amount paid as share application money will stand forfeited by the respondent. The Assessing Officer noted that STSPL has sufficient funds to the extent of ₹ 14.33 crore available with it on 31.3.2009 (the extended period within which the balance amount of the share application money has to be paid). In spite of having such huge funds at its disposal, STSPL has allowed its investment to go in waste and claim loss in its profit and loss account. The Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was extended from time to time and upto 31.3.2009. However, as the STSPL failed to pay the amount, the respondent forfeited the amount of ₹ 2.20 crore being 50% of the share application money in the subsequent assessment year i.e A.Y. 2009-10. More particularly, Tribunal noted the fact that the evidence on record established the identity, capacity and genuineness of the share application money received from STSPL. This is on the basis of the fact that the amounts were received through proper banking channels, the ledger accounts, bank statement and audited annual accounts of STSPL were also submitted which supported the case of the respondent. Further the valuation report / certificate of a Chartered Accountant to the effect that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding of fact which has been rendered after making reference in detail to the documents on record which establish the identity, capacity and genuineness of STSPL to make the investment. In this case, the respondent has gone beyond the requirement of the law as existing in the subject assessment year 2008-09 by having explained the source in terms of Section 68 of the Act. Besides, the reliance by the CIT (A) on the decision of McDowell (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court in decisions in the cases of Union of India Anr. Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan Anr (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of INdia Anr. (2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC) also held that principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
