9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed with RBI for investment by Mauritius shareholder in the assessee company together with the following details in relation to Mauritius shareholder i.e. certificate of incorporation, tax residence certificates, audited financial statements, Copy of return of allotment filed by the assessee with Registrar of Companies and Copy of bank statements of Mauritius shareholder as well as the assessee company We find that these documents were not considered by the CIT(A) while disposing off the appeal for the A.Y.2008-09. Hence, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit and appropriate to remand this appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the entire issues - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d thereon would apply with equal force for A.Y.2009-10 also. 3. The brief facts of this appeal is that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of acquisition, development, construction, marketing and sale of residential township project of approximately 110 acres in Pune, Maharashtra. The assessee has two shareholders, one is an Indian company, PRA Realty (India) Pvt. Ltd. [Domestic Shareholder] and the other is a Mauritius Company (WSI/WSQI V (XXIII) Mauritius Investors Ltd., [Mauritius Shareholder]. The Mauritius shareholder is ultimately owned by a broad based real estate focussed profit equity fund managed by affiliates of Walton Street Capital, LLC with equity commitments in excess of USD 1.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Later the assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal for A.Y.2008-09. The assessee also preferred a rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) pointing out various errors committed by the ld. CIT(A), which is stated to be pending disposal till the date of hearing of this appeal. 5. We have heard rival submissions. At the outset, we find that ld. CIT(A) had ignored various submissions and documentary evidences filed by the assessee before the ld. AO as well as before him and had not given any finding with regard to those evidences on merits. The ld. CIT(A) had primarily placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel Ltd., reported in 41 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame in accordance with law. The assessee is given liberty to raise additional grounds and file fresh evidences in support of its contentions. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y.2008-09 in ITA No.2481/Mum/2019 are allowed for statistical purposes. 5.2. The same decision rendered above for A.Y.2008-09 would apply with equal force for A.Y.2009-10 in ITA No.2482/Mum/2019 also. SA No.224/Mum/2019 and SA No.225/Mum/2019:- These stay applications arise out of ITA No.2481/Mum/2019 and 2482/Mum/2019. 6. As we have already disposed assessee s appeals, these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
