9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ITAT is the fact that the waiver of INR 86 crores was in any case not chargeable in the hands of the individual assessees. It also appears to have taken into consideration the fact that Cellcap Securities being a foreign company was not taxable in India. With regards to the retraction or modulation of the original offer which was made, the ITAT observes that the same was based on incorrect legal advice and was retracted soon thereafter. More importantly, the ITAT notes that the appellant had not relied upon any material including that which may have been gathered in the course of the search and which may have justified taxation of INR 86 crores. We thus find that the view as taken by the ITAT was clearly one which could be said to be reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the business owned and controlled by varied/diverse group units. Subsequently, and on 11 June 2012 the respondents-assessees submitted a break-up of the INR 150 crores which was offered as additional income along with details of individuals against whose names the income was proposed to be offered for taxation. 4. Subsequently, the respondents-assessees took the stand that the additional income of INR 150 crores included a sum of INR 86 crores which represented a waiver of a loan taken by Cellcap Securities Limited from Lehman Brothers. It was thus asserted that the additional income of INR 150 crores was inclusive of the aforesaid sum. The details in respect of the loan waiver were also duly placed before the authorities concerned. Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have further held that the assessee has not produced any evidence to show that the admission made by him were incorrect. In the present case before us the assessee has demonstrated that waiver of Rs. 86. crores is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the individual assesses but in case Cellcap Securities only. Further such company being a foreign company same is not taxable in India. The revenue on the above information reopened the case of that particular company for several years. In view of this in the present case, assessee has demonstrated that his admission was incorrect. In case of Smt. Dayavanti Vs. CIT (supra) there was statements as well as incriminating materials also. In the present case the revenue could not lay hands on any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition on account of admission made by Shri R. S. Sindhu in his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act which was subsequently retracted. 6. As is evident from the above, what has weighed upon the ITAT is the fact that the waiver of INR 86 crores was in any case not chargeable in the hands of the individual assessees. It also appears to have taken into consideration the fact that Cellcap Securities being a foreign company was not taxable in India. With regards to the retraction or modulation of the original offer which was made, the ITAT observes that the same was based on incorrect legal advice and was retracted soon thereafter. More importantly, the ITAT notes that the appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
