9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal for the AY 2013-14 in ITA No.3644/Mum/2019 is taken as a lead case and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for other assessment years also in view of identical facts except with variance in figures. ITA No.3644/Mum/2019 (A.Y.2013-14) 3. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that he would be pressing only ground Nos. 5 & 6 raised for A.Yrs. 2008-09 to 2014-15. Apart from this, the ld. AR stated that he would be pressing the ground No. 8 raised for A.Y.2013-14. The ld. AR also stated that ground no.7 raised by the assessee for A.Y.s 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 is only seeking rectification of the figure wrongly adopted by the ld. AO for the purpose of computing addition towards commission income. All other grounds raised by the assessee in the respective assessment years were stated to be not pressed by the ld. AR, which is reckoned as statement made from Bar and accordingly, all other grounds are dismissed as not pressed for the respective assessment years. 3.1. The ground Nos. 5-6 raised by the assessee are as under:- "5. That the Ld. C1T(A) grossly erred in facts of the case in not allowing set-off of income declared in the books of account a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 153C Returned Income in response to notice u/s. 153C Assessed income u/s. 143{3) r.w.s. 153C 2008-09 28.09.2008 10135 579270 31.10.14 10135 9756750 2009-10 29.09.2009 2166824 2166820 31.10.14 2166824 9970020 2010-11 14.10.2010 3966149 31.10.14 3966149 14071720 2011-12 30.09.2011 2290527 31.10.14 2290527 36350060 2012-13 28.09.2012 -7393754 31.10.14 -7393754 14585110 2013-14 28.09.2013 -2533450 31.10.14 -2533450 295448340 2014-15 30.09.2014 Nil after set of brought forward loss and short term capital less of earlier assessment years 15868400 4.3. From the above table, it could be seen that the ld. AO while computing the assessed income had taken the income returned by the assessee as well as loss returned by the assessee, as the case may be. In other words, for A.Y.2012-13 and 2013-14, assessee had declared loss as per the return of income, which has been duly set off by the ld. AO while computing the commission income on an estimated basis. 4.4. We find that assessee had pleaded before the ld. CIT(A) by conceding and accepting that it earned commission income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the assessee. That is why we find the ld. AO had rejected the book results and had resorted to determining the income of the assessee on an estimated basis by estimating commission @1%. Hence, the income returned by the assessee cannot be brought to tax. Similarly, the loss returned by the assessee cannot be allowed to be set off with estimated commission income. We find that assessee is seeking telescoping benefit of commission income with the income returned by the assessee because, the ld. AO had started the computation of income from the figure of "income / loss" as per the return of income. 4.7. We find that assessee is indeed entitled for the benefit of telescoping for those assessment years where the positive income has been declared by it in the return of income. However, for the A.Yrs. 2012-13 and 2013-14, assessee has declared loss as per the return of income which has already been set off of the ld. AO with the estimated commission income determined by him while completing the assessment. This action of the ld. AO was also upheld by the ld. CIT(A) except for tinkering of estimation of commission income. 4.8. Against the said order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of increase in investment. The same was not appreciated by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed the following chart before us. A.Y. 2012-13 Amt. (As on 31/03/2012) Amt. (As on 31/03/2011) Difference Non-Current Investments 1,05,38,99,577/- 2,12,28,69,023/- (-)1,06,89,69,446/- Current Investments 63,97,82,000/- 63,97,82,000/- 1,69,36,81,577/- 2,12,28,69,023/- (-) 42,91, 87,446/- A.Y. 2013-14 Amt. (As on 31/03/2013) Amt. (As on 31/03/2012) Difference Non-Current Investments 1,66,83,33,146/- 1,05,38,99,577/- 61,44,33,569/- Current Investments 15,22,20,820/- 63,97,82,000/- (-)48,75,61,180/- 1,82,05,53,966/- 1,69,36,81,557/- 12,68,72,389/- A.Y. 2014-15 Amt (As on 31/03/2014) Amt. (As on 31/03/2013) Difference Non-Current Investments 1,76,36,75,577/- 1,66,83,33,146/- 9,53,42,431/- Current Investments 3,03,90,012/- 15,22,20,820/- (-)12,18,30,808/- 1,79,40,65,589/- 1,82,05,53,966/- (-) 2,64,88,377/- 5.2. We hold that in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit and appropriate that the aforesaid chart on investments filed by the assessee requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum was forfeited by the assessee company during the year under consideration. The ld. AR pointed out that the assessee had stated in his audited financial statements that it had forfeited Rs. 27,90,40,000/- in compliance with SEBI guidelines of ICDR 2009 where an amount of 25% as received in terms of application money should be forfeited and that as per the terms and conditions of issue of convertible equity warrants (CEW), the said amount should be transferred to reserves and surplus. The ld. AR submitted that case of the lower authorities is that the forfeiture of share application money is only the method adopted by the assessee to bring unaccounted money in its books of accounts in order to provide more accommodation entries to other beneficiaries. The ld. AO also had stated that this amount was originally brought in by Shri Shirish C Shah and since the money so brought in had been enjoyed by the assessee company itself, the same is to be treated as income in the hands of the assessee. The ld. AR argued that the Revenue had not even bothered to mention the section under which the addition is said to be made in the hands of the assessee company. The ld. AR argued that the forfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
