9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. CIT(A) in this regard - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of ROC charges - Addition on the basis with the same is related to increase in authorised share capital and hence, it is capital expenditure - disallowance has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT [ 1997 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein it was held that fees paid to ROC for increase in authorised share capital is capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as a deduction. Accordingly, the ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 1751/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2021 - Vikas Awasthy, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, assembling and customisation of mobile phones, accessories and data products. The return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 was filed by the assessee company on 29/09/2012 declaring total income of ₹ 2,34,62,490/-. The assessee is also in the sale and distribution of its own product and many more brands through its organised distribution channel. The company has an in-house product development team which designs and develops new products as per the market requirement on economical rates. Further the company also has a small assembled unit at Bhiwandi and Roorkee. The company is also into trading of own bran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingredients i.e. identity of the loan creditors, creditworthiness of the loan creditors and genuineness of the transaction. The assessee had not taken any efforts to prove the aforesaid three necessary ingredients before the lower authorities by providing material evidences. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had observed that a sum of ₹ 50,00,000/- received through RTGS from M/s. Hema Trading Company and on the same date of receipt, the same was shown to be transferred to M/s. Aarohi Commodities Pvt. Ltd., The ld. CIT(A) observed that no explanation was offered by the assessee as to why the amount is transferred from M/s. Hema Trading Company to M/s. Aarohi Commodities Pvt. Ltd. As regards the transactions with M/s. Nakshatra Business Priv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oan creditor and genuineness of the transactions were furnished by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that at the instance of assessee, a remand report was called for from the ld. AO and even in the remand proceedings in response to notice issued by the ld. AO to secure presence of these loan creditors, these loan creditors did not appear before the ld. AO. We find that the ld. CIT(A) considering the fact that certain loans were received during the year and also repaid during the year in respect of M/s. Nakshatra Business Private Limited restricted the addition in the sum of ₹ 3,30,00,000/- thereon u/s. 68 of the Act instead of ₹ 3,65,00,000/- made by the ld. AO. Apart from this, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
