9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance in both these appeals relates to the addition/disallowance made in the order framed u/s. 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'] on the issue which has no nexus with the alleged material unearthed during the course of search operation. 4. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the Monnet group of cases including the assessee on 19.11.2010. During the course of search operations, certain documents belonging to the assessee were found and seized. Since the alleged documents pertained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her find that the Assessing Officer while making addition has heavily relied upon the findings given in the group company M/s. Pavitra Commercial Ltd. for Assessment Year 2009-10. 10. We find that this Tribunal, in the appeal of Pavitra Commercial ITA 5389/DEL/2012 has deleted the said disallowance. The findings of the Tribunal read as under: "7.3. After hearing rival contentions, we hold as follows. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chand Ratan Bagri reported in 329 ITR 356 has held as follows. "More importantly, the second issue as to whether the forfeiture of the convertible warrant amounted to a transfer within the meaning of s. 2(47) of the said Act has now been made clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : "3. In the impugned order, the ITAT has relied upon the judgment of this court in CIT Vs. Chand Ratan Bagri [2010] 329 ITR 356 [Del] which holds that the share warrant is a capital asset. It is stated that the Revenue has not filed an appal against the said judgment on account of the low tax effect. 4. Be that as it may, since the aforementioned judgment of this court holds the field, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal." 12. In light of the aforementioned judgments of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court, we do not find any merit in the addition made in Assessment Year 2009-10. 13. Considering the facts of the captioned appeals in totality, both the assessment orders are quashed. 14. On merits also, the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
