9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gus share capital including share premium. 3. Briefly stated facts as observed by the AO are that in the year under consideration, the assessee has raised share capital including share premium to the tune of Rs. 5,01,00,000/-. The AO added back the entire amount of share capital including premium raised treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action of AO. Aggrieved, assessee is before us. 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The addition u/s. 68 of the Act was resorted by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the share capital and premium of Rs. 5,01,00,000/-. However, accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of cash. The four companies which applied for allotment of shares, have sold their investment to the assessee company and the assessee company, has as consideration for the purchase of those shares had allotted shares at a premium. It is a case of swapping of shares. The shares were allotted for consideration other than cash. The question is whether under these facts and circumstances Section 68 of the Act, would be attracted. 4.1. The ld. D/R, submits that the premium is not justified and that the ld. CIT(A) was wrong in holding that the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. He relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. In reply the ld. Counsel for the assessee, submits that each o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by way of note that the fresh share capital was raised during the year for consideration other than cash. Hence we hold that provision of section 68 of the Act are not applicable in the instant case and accordingly the entire addition deserves to be deleted which has rightly been done by the Id. CIT(A) which does not require any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed." 4.2. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Co .v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1994] 206 ITR 718 (CAL.) held as follows:- "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1976- 77 - Partners of assessee-firm were members of one 'J' group running several businesses and industries - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. However, the second question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Electro Polychem Ltd., (supra) and Steller Investment Ltd., (supra). 26. This case is distinguishable from the case of CIT v. Lovely Export (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) in that the transactions were only book transactions, and there was no cash receipt. The decisions in (i) CIT v. Focus Exports (P.) Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 46/228 Taxman 88 (Delhi) (Mag.); (ii) CIT v. Globus Securities & Finance Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 465/224 Taxman 237 (Delhi); (iii) Onassis Axles (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 364 ITR 53/224 Taxman 80 (Mag.)/44 taxmann.com 408 (Delhi); (iv) Olwin Tiles India (P.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
