9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue has filed any evidence, nor assessee has filed any paper book. It has not been brought to our notice, as to how these analysis are contrary to the record. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has made a lucid analysis of the record available before her, and appreciated the controversy in right perspective. We do not find any merit in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue challenging deletion of addition - Decided against revenue. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 237 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2021 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA MRS MAUNA M BHATT FOR THE APPELLANT ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the creditors were shown as outstanding in the books of accounts of the appellant company. Since these creditors have actually been paid through cheque and the transactions have also been placed by the AO on record during the first round of assessment proceedings the addition under section 68 in the name of three parties that is Carrier Information Technology amounting to ₹ 3,24,50,000/ ; Gap Corporate services Pvt. Ltd. amount to ₹ 3.5 crores and Maxim Info Systems amounting to ₹ 2,58,50,000/ was therefore, not correct. These accounts have been subsequently squared up either by rotation of funds through bank account without retaining or enjoying any funds by the appellant or by book entry adjustments by introd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akh was received from Skylid Telecommunications Ltd. on 23/03/2001 and was claimed to be paid back Carrier Information Technology on and 07/03/2001 to the extent of ₹ 20 lakh and, therefore, the appellant had claimed that only ₹ 1 lakh was retained and earned from the amount so received. It is also seen that ROC fees of the appellant were paid by Trance Techno Foods Ltd. amounting to ₹ 7500 on 19/02/2001. Similarly, the appellant has also admitted to have earned ₹ 1.5 lacs in cash which were brought in the books in the name of Shri Nilesh Kadiwala. Therefore, the appellant had accordingly claimed that the only income earned but not disclosed in the books worked out to ₹ 2,57,500/ . On examination of the fl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 1,11,50,000/ Unexplained payment, claim to have been made to Carrier Information Technology on 19/02/2001 ₹ 13,50,000/ Unexplained payment claim to have been made to Carrier Information Technology on 27/03/2001 ₹ 20,00,000/ Payment of RIC fees ₹ 7,500/ Cash introduced in the name of Nilesh Kadiwala and admitted as income. ₹ 1,50,000/ Total ₹ 1,46,57,500/ 4. The afore said findings recorded by the CIT(A) came to be affirmed by the appellate tribunal while dismissing all the appeals. We quote t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has filed any evidence, nor assessee has filed any paper book. It has not been brought to our notice, as to how these analysis are contrary to the record. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has made a lucid analysis of the record available before her, and appreciated the controversy in right perspective. We do not find any merit in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue challenging deletion of ₹ 9.33 crores as well as ground of appeal raised by the assessee pleading therein that the income of ₹ 1,57,10,000/ ought to have been assessed as business income instead of income from other sources . 5. Having regard to the afore said findings of fact recorded by the two authorities, we do not deem fit to inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
