9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income taxed both substantively and protectively - whether Assessee is neither the legal nor economic owner? - as argued by assessee cannot be held to be the owner of the land, that is agricultural, given the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 which explicitly prohibit a company from acquiring agricultural land. AO held that since the lands are converted, the surplus arising on transfer of such converted lands is brought to tax as 'Short Term Capital Gains' and since the Assessee had funded part of the transaction by way of a loan to the Respondent, the short term capital gains earned were taxed in the hands of the Assessee - Additions of income earned from transactions carried in the hands of present assessee holding as acted as a conduit of the present assessee - HELD THAT:- Providing source of funds to Mr. T. Nadakrishna to purchase the property cannot be only reason to treat the transaction as carried out by the present assessee. The assessee is just the lender of the funds to facilitate the transaction of purchase of impugned property. As rightly pointed out by the ld. A.R., assessee is only a financier, who provided the finance to Mr. T. Nadakrishna to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y rider being that both the professed intention and real intention should be the same. The departmental authorities have no right to vary the terms of contract are result of the transaction between the parties merely because the agreed terms are not to their liking in the sense that they do not add to the collection of the taxes. In our opinion, in the present case, the transaction have to be given effect as they are executed on bona fide belief though it was resulted in reduction of tax liability since these transactions are genuine, bona fide and not colourable transactions. Further, the impugned transaction undertaken by T. Nadakrishna was right from the inception conceived and controlled by himself not by the present assessee M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd. To sum up as held by Hon ble Supreme Court, Binapani Paul [ 2007 (4) TMI 752 - SUPREME COURT] that the source of money had never been the sole consideration. It is merely one of the relevant considerations but not determinative in character. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Protective additions made by ld. AO in the hands of T. Nadakrishna - As we have deleted the substantive addition made in the han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amend the grounds of appeal. 46.1. Assessee has filed additional grounds of appeal in ITA No.127/Bang/2020, which are as follows:- 1. The order of the Learned Assessing Officer ( LAO ) and Hon ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ( Ld. CIT(A) ) is opposed to law and general principles of natural justice as applicable to quasi judicial proceedings. 2. The order of the LAO and Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and against the provisions of section 153A, since amongst others, the additions are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, the order passed by the LAO is bad in law since the LAO has not provided an opportunity to the Appellant to cross examine certain personnel whose statements have been recorded on oath during the course of search. 4. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered. 47. Facts of the case are that a search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd. (erstwhile M/s SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) to search of office at No. 33/1, Sapthagiri Arcade, 8th Cross, H. Siddaia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39,45,606 TOTAL 1,85,22,224 9,16,00,000 7,30,77,776 48. From the above table, AO came to the conclusion that assessee earned a business income of Rs. 7,30,77,776/- treated as a business income in the hands of the assessee. Against this assessee went in appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO observed that the assessee has purchased 22 acres 36 guntas of land at Manchanayakanahalli through T. Nanda Krishna since the assessee being a company was not permitted to acquire the agricultural land for formation of residential sites and layouts and later said land was sold by T. Nanda Krishna to SPR Developers Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 9.16 crores for which assessee has given an amount of Rs. 1.85 crores. The income generated from the same to be assessed as business income of the assessee. Against this assessee is in appeal before us by way of above grounds. 49. The additional grounds raised herein as additional ground Nos.1 to 3 in ITA No.127/Bang/2020 were already discussed while adjudicating the ITA in Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018 from para Nos.14 to 39 and the same decision is applicable herein also. Accordingly, all the additional grounds raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be liable to any income tax- subject to this being taxable in his hands. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 4. The LAO and Hon. CIT(A) erred in not considering any of the submissions made by the Appellant in the course of remand proceedings. 5. Without prejudice to the preceding grounds, the order of the LAO and Hon. CIT(A) is bad in law and ought to be quashed since these orders were passed without considering that the Appellant is only a lender of funds and is neither the legal nor the economic owner of the impugned land. 6. Without prejudice to the preceding ground, the order passed by the Hon. CIT(A)is bad in facts and in law since, the same have not given effect to the directions of the Hon. ITAT as provided in para 51 of the Hon. ITATs order dated 27.05.2022. Without prejudice to the preceding grounds, 7. The Hon. CIT(A)and the LAO erred in upholding the addition in a sum of Rs. 7,30,77,776 under the head business income without considering that the Appellant is not engaged in any trade, commerce, manufacture or adventure in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture in the context of land and at best these activities can be alleged only to the borrower Shri. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come from Chamundi Distilleries Private Limited of Rs. 60,000/-, agricultural income of Rs. 1,75,000/- and exemption from long-term capital gains of Rs. 9,16,00,000. Based on the documents found during the search in the Assessee's group cases, the ld. AO noted that the Respondent had facilitated the purchase and sale of lands on behalf of the Assessee, The ld. AO held that since the lands are converted, the surplus arising on transfer of such converted lands is brought to tax as 'Short Term Capital Gains'. Further, since the Assessee had funded part of the transaction by way of a loan to the Respondent, the short term capital gains earned were taxed in the hands of the Assessee. SPRD had entered into a memorandum of understanding with Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society ('VBEHCS') on 06.10.2005 for development and formation of residential plots. As per MOU, SPRD was responsible for formation of roads, drains, laying soiling stone, metalling, construction of FD works, storm water drains, asphalting etc. For undertaking such activities, the lands were transferred by M Thimme Gowda and his family members in favour of VBEHCS as security against the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed in the hands of Assessee and on a protective basis in the hands of the Respondent. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the additions in the hands of Assessee. Due to the inherent litigations involved in the lands to be developed, the completion of the project was delayed. As such, the MOU dated 6.10.2005 between M Thimme Gowda and VBEHCS was cancelled vide arbitration award dated 25.04.2013. Hence, the Respondent continues to be the owner of the land and in effect, no transfer has taken place of the impugned lands to be exigible to tax. Action of the ld. AO and basis for the same 3.3 He submitted that the ld. AO has, as an alternative to above, treated the gains arising on the sale of agricultural lands as 'Short-term capital gain' for the following reasons: o The transferred asset is non-agricultural / converted land; o No proof is submitted to show that cultivation was carried out on the lands prior to date of sale; o The Assessee could not have transferred agricultural lands to a non-agriculturist in view of the prohibitions imposed by section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964; Without prejudice to the above, we submit as foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is an inherent contradiction in the ld. AO's approach. The ld. AO first states that SPR Developers did not purchase the lands in question since as a company, it is precluded by the local law to purchase the same. On the other hand, the ld. AO states that the Assessee, a company, has purchased the lands and transferred the lands as well for which it is liable to capital gains. When the local law precludes a company from purchasing lands, it applies to both SPR Developers as well as the Assessee. That is, if SPR Developers is unable to purchase the land, for the same reason, the Assessee cannot purchase the land. Thus, the ld. AO has adopted contrary positions on this issue. Having stated this, the correct legal position is that a company cannot purchase agricultural lands, and hence, either SPR Developers or Assessee cannot be said to have purchased or owned lands. As such, Assessee cannot be subject to capital gains taxation. It is only T Nadakrishna, who is the rightful purchaser and owner of the agricultural land. Assuming but not admitting that the ld. AO's action of treating the income substantively in the Assessee's hand is appropriate, he submitted that on meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... krishna on his own and agricultural income was admitted up to the impugned AY. f) Assessee / T Nadakrishna never made any plot out of the impugned land and the land was sold in acres and guntas and not as square feet. g) Assessee / T Nadakrishna has not made any roads or any facilities and it was undeveloped land fit to use for agricultural purpose at the time of sale. h) T Nadakrishna had shown the agricultural income, when the agricultural operations were carried on the said land. i) The purpose for which the purchaser used the land cannot be a reason to treat the agricultural land as non-agricultural land. j) Assessee / T Nadakrishna has not taken any permission from the Government for making plots, as he never had any intention to make the land into plots and carry on real estate business in respect of the land. T Nadakrishna has sold land in as it is condition. k) All of the above is also evidence by the agreements of sale. l) T Nadakrishna held the land always as investment and not at all converted into stock-in-trade. The character of the land in the hands of T Nadakrishna has not changed. Assessee never even owned the land. m) There is no material on record in respect of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limits any municipality or cantonment board. This fact is acknowledged by the ld. AO. The income-tax law does not mandate that agriculture activities should be carried out for the land to be construed as agricultural land. 3.13 Further, he submitted that as per the conversion order, one of the conditions laid for the conversion to be valid is that the land should be used for the intended purpose i.e., residential use within 2 years from the date of conversion order. Failure to comply with the condition would render the land conversion to be invalid. In this backdrop, since the land had not been put to use for its intended purpose, the lands has automatically restored to its original nature of agriculture land on the expiry of two years. 3.14 He also submitted that the ld. AO has erred in stating that the lands are non-agricultural land since the lands were transferred to a non-agriculturist. The ld. AO relies on section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964 to show that T Nadakrishna could not have transferred agriculture lands to non-agriculturist since the transfer is prohibited. Here, he submitted that pursuant to the amendment brought to section 80 w.e.f. 25.11.1980, the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apply. Hence, section 2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS. 3.20 He also submitted that merely because T Nadakrishna has reflected the above transaction in his income-tax return as being exempt, does not imply that the UAFS results in income under the Act. in this regard, reliance is placed on the well-settled principles that taxation cannot be based on estoppel and that it can be only under the provisions of the Act. Without prejudice, the arrangements with VBEHCSL are presently terminated pursuant to an arbitration arrangement and hence the Assessee continues to be the owner of the lands 3.21 Without prejudice, he submitted that no development has taken place on the proposed lands to be transferred due to dispute on titles to the land; the land that was to be converted has not been converted. Hence, the terms of the MOU have not been complied with for the transfer to be regarded as complete. Hence, for the above reasons, he submitted that it would not be appropriate to consider that income has arisen to T Nadakrishna or the Assessee on account of the transfer of lands. The following propositions are relevant here: a) No real income 'arises' in the present facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the substantive and protective assessment orders of the ld. AO in the cases of SPR Spirits Private Limited or T Nadakrishna respectively should be quashed. 4. On the other hand, ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, financial statement of T Nadakrishna was analysed and noticed that he had purchased 22 acres 36 guntas of converted lands at Manchanayakanahalli, near Bangalore-Mysore highway. Subsequently, he had entered into sale agreement with M/s. SPR Developers Pvt. Ltd within a short duration of such purchase. Further, the income and financial statements of T Nadakrishna was analysed from AY 2006-07 to 2012-13 and noticed that T Nadakrishna was earning meagre salary from M/s. Chamundi Distilleries Pvt Ltd and also he didn't have any fixed asset in his name. Details of source of funds for purchase of property was called for during the course of assessment proceedings, in reply he stated that Amount received from sister concern. T Nadakrishna, being an individual, cannot have any sister concern. The claim made by the T Nadakrishna in respect of source of funds was baseless. During the assessment proceedings, the ledger extract of the T Nadakrish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 guntas. This shows that intention of the T Nadakrishna was not for cultivation. If the intention of the T Nadakrishna was cultivation, he would not have entered into an agreement with the SPR Developers before acquiring the lands. As such, the claim of the assessee is not correct. Hence, she submitted that no interference in assessment order is called for since no infirmity arose. She prayed that addition is to be sustained in the event of protective addition is deleted in the hands of T. Nadakrishna. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, there was search seizure in case of the assessee on 8.2.2011. During the course of search, certain incriminating materials were found and seized documents belong to one Mr. T. Nadakrishna. The seized materials such as purchase of 22 acres and 32 guntas of converted land at Manchanayakanahalli and within a short duration had entered into sale agreement with M/s. SPR Developers Pvt. Ltd. for further development of land. It was also noted that the said land has been transferred to the developer during the current financial year itself. The ld. AO issued notice u/s 153C of the Act to Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essence of a Benami is the intention of the party or parties concerned ; and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be Benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him ; nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof. The reason is that a deed is a solemn document prepared and executed after considerable deliberation, and the person expressly shown as the purchaser or transferee in the deed, starts with the initial presumption in his favour that the apparent state of affairs is the real state of affairs. Though the question whether a particular sale is Benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining this question, no absolute for mulae or acid tests, uniformly applicable in all situations, can be laid down ; yet in weighing the probabilities and for gathering the relevant indicia, the courts are usually guided by these circumstances : (1) the source from which the purchase money came ; (2) the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase ; (3) motive, if any, for giving the transa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealing with the property after the sale. (Jaydayal Poddar v. Mst. Bibi Hazra (supra), SCC page 7, para 6) 8.3 After considering the aforesaid decision in the recent decision of this court in the case of P. Leelavathi (supra), this court has again reiterated that to hold that a particular transaction is Benami in nature the aforesaid six circumstances can be taken as a guide. 8.4 Applying the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the reasoning given by the trial court confirmed by the High Court, it appears that both, the learned trial court and the High Court have erred in shifting the burden on the defend ants to prove that the sale transactions were not Benami transactions. As held hereinabove in fact when the plaintiffs' claim, though not specifically pleaded in the plaint, that the sale deeds in respect of suit properties, which are in the name of defendant No. 1, were Benami transactions, the plaintiffs have failed to prove, by adducing cogent evidence, the intention of the Narayanasamy Mudaliar to purchase the suit properties in the name of defendant No. 1 his wife 9. Even the reasoning and the findings recorded by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 10,000/- and therefore inference drawn by the learned Trial Court and the High Court that therefore even the defendant no.1 also considered the share of the daughter and considered the suit properties as joint family properties and therefore plaintiffs have also share in the suit properties is concerned, the said finding is just a misreading and mis-interpretation of the evidence on record. In her deposition, defendant no.1 has explained the payment of Rs. 10,000/- to Nagabushanam, daughter and the Release Deed executed by her. It is specifically stated by her that though she had no share in the suit properties, with a view to avoid any further litigation in future and to be on safer side, Rs. 10,000/- is paid and the Release Deed was got executed by Nagabushanam in favour of defendant no.1. Even in the Release Deed at Exh. A1, it is so specifically stated. Therefore, merely because to avoid any further litigation in future and though Nagabushanam had no share in the suit properties, Rs. 10,000/- was paid and the Release Deed was got executed in favour of defendant no.1, by that itself, it cannot be said that defendant no.1 treated the suit properties as ancestral propertie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atutory presumption, which was rebuttable, has been omitted. It is the case on behalf of the respondents that therefore in view of omission of Section 3(2) of the Benami Transaction Act, the plea of statutory transaction that the purchase made in the name of wife or children is for their benefit would not be available in the present case. Aforesaid cannot be accepted. As held by this Court in the case of Binapani Paul (Supra) the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act would not be applicable retrospectively. Even otherwise and as observed hereinabove, the plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge his onus to prove that the Sale Deeds executed in favour of defendant no.1 were benami transactions and the same properties were purchased in the name of defendant no.1 by Narayanasamy Mudaliar from the amount received by him from the sale of other ancestral properties. 12.1 Once it is held that the Sale Deeds in favour of defendant no.1 were not benami transactions, in that case, suit properties, except property nos. 1 and 3, which were purchased in her name and the same can be said to be her self acquired properties and therefore cannot be said to be Joint Family Properties, the plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be brought to tax in the hands of present assessee. The assessee is just the lender of the funds to facilitate the transaction of purchase of impugned property. As rightly pointed out by the ld. A.R., assessee is only a financier, who provided the finance to Mr. T. Nadakrishna to purchase the property just like a banker and these transactions are duly reflected in the hands of T. Nadakrishna and immovable property being owned by T. Nadakrishna and subsequently, he himself only transferred the property in his name to M/s. SPR Developers Pvt. Ltd. who is a different legal entity. 5.2 In our opinion, the burden of proving the transaction as carried out by T. Nadakrishna on behalf of the present assessee and the apparent purchaser T. Nadakrishna is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so. This burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character, which is neither directly proved by the lower authorities directly nor established by indirectly and no inference could be drawn to hold it so. While considering the particular transaction as colourable device, the intention of the person, who contributed the purchase money ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases must be to take the entire transaction or arrangement as a whole and see if it makes any economic or commercial sense without attaching weight to the steps that go to make up the scheme, each of which may be legally valid. The genuineness of the arrangement has to be viewed not in relation to every step taken to achieve the result but in relation to the final result. This is only a different way of saying that you have to look at the truth of the transaction (and if permissible) by going behind the fa ade of documentation or the series of steps taken. In our country, this approach has been approved by the Supreme Court every now and then and in one of the earliest cases Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT(1958) 34 ITR 888 it was held by His Lordship Justice T.L. Venkatarama Iyer (at page 897) that: Mr. Kolah argues that there is nothing wrong in business being done in such a way as to escape taxation. No exception can be taken to that statement. Every person is entitled so to arrange his affairs as to avoid taxation. But the arrangement must be real and genuine and not a sham or make believe, and the question now under consideration is whether the contracts with the brokers we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing tax evasion was restated in much stronger expressions such as dubious device , subterfuge , colourable transaction , etc. The judgement did not permit the income-tax authorities to re-write or make a new contract for the parties nor did it say that they could not go behind the documentation in an attempt to find out the real intention of the parties. If the real intention of the parties id discovered to be something different from the intention professed in the document, the income-tax authorities are at liberty to brand the same as a subterfuge or a dubious device or a colourable transaction. Our attention was drawn to the decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts rendered after the judgement in McDowell Co. Ltd. s case (supra). We may first refer to CWT V. Arvind Narottam (Individual) (1988) 173 ITR 479 (SC) where the Supreme Court refused to apply McDowell Co. Ltd. s case (supra) to a case where the deeds were clearly worded that the deeds did not intend to convey what they professed. The McDowell Co. Ltd. s case (supra) rule was convassed by the Revenue before the Supreme Court without any evidence to show that the documents were a subterfuge, an artifice or embodied c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al arrangements and documents or transactions have to be given effect to, even though they result in a reduction of the tax liability, provided that they are genuine, bonafide and not colourable transactions. The contention that the validity of the transactions cannot be looked into within the frame of the question is, with respect, of the mark because merely legal validity does not necessarily give a touch of genuineness to the transaction, which depends on various other considerations. Therefore, the further contention that since the question referred to the Special Bench is limited to the application of the rule laid down in McDowell Co. Ltd. s case (supra), it presupposes that the sale and lease-back transaction is valid and therefore it cannot be held to be non-genuine, cannot be accepted. Every step in the whole transaction may be legally correct, but still whether the whole transaction is genuine in the sense that it is not a subterfuge or colourable device or a dubious method is an entirely different question not dependent solely on the fact that every step in the transaction is legally valid or correct. 5.2.2 As seen from the above orders of the Tribunal, it is pertinent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the relevant considerations but not determinative in character. This court ultimately concluded after considering its earlier judgment in the case of Valliammal v. Subramaniam [2004] 7 SCC 233 that while considering whether a particular transaction is benami in nature, the following six circumstances viz., '(1) the source from which the purchase money came; (2) the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase; (3) motive, if any, for giving the transaction a Benami colour ; (4) the position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged Benamidar; (5) the custody of the title deeds after the sale; and (6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale. (Jaydayal Poddar v. Mst. Bibi Hazra (supra), SCC page 7, para 6) cumulatively or collectively to be taken as a guiding factor. In the present case, all these conditions not fulfilled at all. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Other grounds of appeal are infructuous in view of our finding that this impugned transaction cannot be considered as a transaction carried out by T. Nadakrishna on behalf and in the name of presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstantive assessment has been confirmed by him in the hands of M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd. for the same assessment year. 7.3 Against this, revenue filed the appeal before us wherein raised following grounds: 1) The order of the learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2) The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on a protective basis when the substantive assessment in the case of M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd. had not reached finality. 3) The CIT(A) erred in not following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT to decide the appeal in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Surendra Guiabchand Modi (140 ITR 517) and Rajesh Shantilai Adani (20 GSTR 526). 4) For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order of Jhe CIT(A) may be reversed and that assessment order to be restored. 8. The ld. D.R. submitted that Search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of M/s SPR Developers Pvt Ltd on 08-12-2011. During the course of search certain incriminating material was found and seized. The seized documents belonged to the assessee shri T. Nadakrishna. Therefore, notice u/s l53C dt. 23-07-2013 was issued to the assessee requiri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Spirits Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2 Further, she submitted that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided both appeals which were remitted to ld. CIT(A) by Tribunal collectively instead of deciding each appeal independently on different dates. 9. The ld. A.R. submitted that this issue is squarely covered by earlier order of the Tribunal and to be decided in favour of the assessee by submitting as follows: 9.1 The above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the Bangalore ITAT in the case of Sri D Dasappa in ITA Nos. 2222 2223/Bang/2016, dated 09.02.2022, Sri M Thimmegowda in ITA Nos. 1035 and 1036/Bang/2019, dated 20.04.2022 and Smt. Leelavathy in ITA Nos. 752 to 755/Bang/2019, dated 18.04.2022. In these rulings, the facts involved the same transaction as is the subject matter of this appeal. In so holding, the ITAT relied on the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). He also relied on the following rulings: a) CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras HC; b) Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; c) Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; d) ACIT v. Ijyaraj Singh (183 ITD 237); Jaipur IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
