9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als against the common orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai, in ITA Nos. 159 160/2017-18/CIT(A)-15 dated 10.07.2019 for assessment years 2012-13, in the above connected cases with the following common grounds: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the issue under consideration was still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. National Travel Services vs CIT (89 taxmann.com 332 (SC)) and before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Subhavarsha Infotech vs. DCIT against the Tribunal order vide ITA Nos. 2365/Chny/2016 and 2805/Chny/2016 dated 05.12.2018. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsferred to a third party but confirmed the addition of ₹ 4.54 Crores which was transferred to the above three partners. On further appeal by both the firm and the Department, the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai upheld the addition of the AO in the hands of the firm - M/s. Subhavarsha Infotech. The firm accepted the ITAT's order partly to the extent of confirmation of the addition of ₹ 4.54 Crores, but appealed against the ITAT's decision in respect of the confirmation of the addition of ₹ 3 Crores given to the third party. The firm's appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. 2.1. While the above addition was contested in appeal in the ITAT, the AO reopened and assessed one-third of ₹ 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd has referred the earlier decision of the apex court in the case of Madhur Housing Development Company to a larger bench of the Supreme Court. 2.2. After considering the assessees submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) held, inter alia, that the AR has furnished a copy of appeal filed by the firm - M/s. Subhavarsha Infotech before the Hon'ble High Court against the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai as mentioned above in which only the confirmation of addition of ₹ 3 Crores given to third party has been contested in appeal. After considering the AR's submission, I am convinced that, since the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai has already confirmed the addition of ₹ 4.54 crores in the hands of the firm - M/s. Subhavarsha Infotech ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. The relevant portion is extracted as under: 13. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that a sum of ₹ 7,54,00,000/- was received by the assessee as advance from M/s. Symbiotic Infotech P. Ltd. There is also no dispute that the said Company had two different accounts in the books of the assessee, one for trading advances and other for non-trading loans/advances, and the sum of ₹ 7,54,00,000/- was not a trading advance. It is also not disputed that MIs. Symbiotic Infotech P. Ltd. had accumulated profits of ₹ 28,09,06,827/- as on 31.03.2012. Assessee had relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in. the case of Printwave Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idual benefit cannot be given. The benefit will include direct or indirect things. Partner whose friend's wife received the advance had indirectly benefited from the advance received by the assessee from M/s. Symbiotic Infotech P. Ltd. We are therefore of the opinion that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) fell in error in giving relief of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- to the assessee. In these circumstances, we dismiss the grounds 6 to 10 of the assessee and allow the appeal of the Revenue. 4.1. On receipt of the above order, the firm, M/s. Subhavarsha Infotech has accepted the ITAT's decision to the extent of ₹ 4.54 Crores and therefore it reached finality. With regard to the addition of ₹ 3 Crores confirmed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
