TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the AO to object the deletion of addition made. It is also noted that the AO even though noted that interest has been not paid on unsecured loan has accepted the majority of such unsecured loan in the assessment framed on receipt of information u/s 133(6) - Non-payment of interest thus could be no valid justification for making addition under the provisions of section 68 - assessee having satisfactorily discharged its onus by placing on record voluminous evidence, CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts and evidence on record and thus the deletion of addition made by CIT(A) is reasonable and correct. Also loan received by the assessee have been repaid during the year under consideration and in respect to one loan it has been repaid in the subsequent accounting year. Repayment of loan by the assessee is evident from evidence placed on record and is undisputed fact on record. Repayment of loan accepted by the Revenue Authorities is not controverted by the learned D.R Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has discharged its onus to explain identity and creditworthiness of loan creditors as well as genuineness of transaction. There remains no scope for invoking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Nagpur, [ learned CIT(A) ], for the assessment year 2014 15. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8.50 crore made by the AO as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without considering the fact that no evidence was furnished by the assessee to substantiate the creditworthiness of the six (6) entities from whom such amount was claimed to have been received. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8.50 crore made as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act merely by relying on the fact that four (4) out of the six (6) loans were repaid by the assessee during the relevant year and the other two loans were repaid by the assessee during the subsequent financial years. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance made u/s 14A to Rs. 15,89,749/- instead of Rs. 25,99,737/- without considering the fact that the entire expenditure was incurred in relation to income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company has taken unsecured loans of ₹ 45.53 crore from various parties details of which are indicated in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer at Para 5.1.2 has noted the defects in respect to unsecured loans from the details furnished by assessee. It has been observed that confirmation letters are scanned copies and are not in original. At Para 5.1.2, it has been noted that no interest has been paid by the assessee on so called unsecured loans except to one party. The Assessing Officer has discussed further submissions as made before him in the assessment proceedings. It has been noted at Para 5.1.4 that notice under section 133(6) of the Act were issued to all the parties on 15/11/2016, and such parties were asked to furnish loan confirmation, copies of their return of income and bank statement by 25/11/2016. It has been noted that five parties responded and furnished the requisite details. In respect to others, no reply was received. The Assessing Officer at Para 5.1.5 has noted the issue of show cause notice dated 06/12/2016, in respect to seven parties as detailed at Para 5.1.4 of assessment order. At Para 5.1.6, the Assessing Officer has noted that after the sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to notice under section 133(6) of the Act was received from all the parties and his observation in this regard are indicated in the remand report. Relevant portion of remand report is reproduced in the order of the learned CIT(A) at Page 17 to 20. The learned CIT(A) at Para 3.4 has noted that the aforesaid remand report was provided to assessee for its reply. The reply submitted by assessee in respect to comments of the Assessing Officer has been reproduced at Para 3.4 / Page 20 to 58. The learned CIT(A) after considering the facts and evidence on record has deleted the addition made for the reasons discussed at Para 4.1 at Page 59 to 63 of appellate order. 6. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative, Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, ( the learned D.R. ) submitted that the deletion of addition made by the learned CIT(A) is unjustified as addition is deleted by picking and choosing part of remand report. Entire remand report of the Assessing Officer is not considered while granting relief in the case of assessee. It is further submitted by Shri Salunke, that on loan transactions interest has not been paid by assessee and this fact is given in the remand report which justifies t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Income Tax Return and response of lenders to notice issued u/s 133(6) of I.T. Act 1961 is available on record. (Page 1 to 172) (Page 1 to 172) [Vol. I II]. None of the legal documents have been found to be incorrect in any manner. No shred of evidence is brought on record to discredit any of the legal evidence available on record. B) A.O. in the remand proceedings issued notice u/s 133(6) to various lenders. Response along with documents evidence was submitted by lenders affirming transaction made with assessee company including repayment received of advance given by lenders. Legal evidence obtained in independent verification during the course of assessment proceedings/remand proceedings corroborate the transaction of loan received. Assessee has discharged its onus to explain identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction of loan. Addition made by A.O. u/s 68 of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified. C) A.O. in remand report reproduced at Page 14 to 20 of order of CIT(A) has made no adverse observation as to receipt of loan from such parties to justify addition u/s 68. No shred of evidence is brought on record or any adverse finding is recorded to discredit legal evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 40) [Vol. V] (38, 39) v) (2020) 423 ITR 0531 ( Bom) Mr. Gaurav Triyugi Singh v/s ITO (P- 41 to 44) [Vol. V] (44) vi) (2015) 64 Taxmann 329 (Del) CIT v/s Shiv Dhooti Pearls Investment Ltd. (P- 45 to 49) [Vol. V] (45, 46) vii) (2000) 245 ITR 0160 (MP) CIT vs. Metachem Industries (P- 50 to 53) [Vol. V] (52, 53) viii) (1996) 220 ITR 0452 (MP) Ashok Pal Daga vs. CIT (P- 54 to 56) [Vol. V] (55, 56) ix) Hon ble Gujrat High Court in Tax Appel No.992/Guj/2013 in case of Ayachi Chandrashekar Narsangjivide vide order dated 02/12/2013. (P- 57 to 59) [Vol. V] (58) x) (2023) 290 Taxmann 471 (Guj) CIT v/s Ambe Tradecorp Pvt.Ltd. (P- 60 to 62) [Vol. V] (61) xi) (1999) 237 ITR 0570 (SC) CIT v/s SMT.PK.Noorjahan. (P- 63 to 66) [Vol. V] (65, 66) xii) (2007) 291 ITR 0278 (SC) CIT v/s P. Mohankala Ors (P- 67 to 75) [Vol. V] (73, 74) xiii) (2023) 152 Taxmann 663 (Del) PCIT v/s Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd. (P- 76 to 84) [Vol. V] (82, 82) 8. We have perused the orders of lower authorities in particular remand report furnished by the Assessing Officer on the evidence submitted by the assessee. It is clear that the Assessing Officer has been provided with confirmation of loan creditors indicating address and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Sr. no. Particulars Page no. 1. Ledger Confirmation 1 2. Relevant Period Bank Statement 2 41 3. ITR Acknowledgement 42 4. Computation of Income 43 5. Audited Financial Statement 44 63 6. Tax Audit Report 64 71 E. Satguru Enterprises Sr. no. Particulars Page no. 1. Ledger Confirmation 72 2. Relevant Period Bank Statement 73 86 3. ITR Acknowledgement 87 4. Computation of Income 88 5. Audited Financial Account 89 97 6. Tax Audit Report 98 107 7. Response submitted in respect to notice u/s 133(6) of I.T. Act 1961 108 123 F. Brahmachari ni Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Sr. no. Particulars Page no. 1. Ledger Confirmation 124 2. Relevant Period Bank Statement 125 126 3. Form 3CA Acknowledgment 127 4. Computation of Income 128 130 5. Annual Report 131 155 5. Tax Audited Report 156 172 9. It is seen from the record that the learned CIT(A) has considered the entire remand report and appreciated the observation of the Assessing Officer correctly and no fault could be found with the order of the learned CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The learned Counsel for the assessee has correctly pointed out that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ₹ 850 lakh out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming the assessment. Therefore, when the AO himself has failed to conduct any inquiry to disprove the documentary evidence filed by the assessee then the assessee cannot be held guilty for no response of the loan creditors to such summons issued by the AO. Once the assessee has produced all the relevant evidence then the primary onus of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act stand discharged to prove identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors as well as genuineness of the transactions. Except raising the issue of non-filing of balance sheet and in two cases deposited of cash in the bank account the AO has not disputed the evidence produced by the assessee. Even if it is considered as a serious aspect where the cash is found deposited in the bank account the AO ought to have conducted inquiry to find out the correct facts. In the absence of any inquiry the cash deposit in bank account of two creditors would not epso facto lead to the conclusion that the transactions of all the unsecured loans are not genuine or the creditworthiness of the creditors in all cases is not proved. The evidence produced by the assessee prima facie satisfied the conditions u/s 68 to explain the source, id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount. 6. So far as the responsibility of the assessee is concerned, it is satisfactorily discharged. Whether that person is an income-tax payer or not or from where he has brought this money is not the responsibility of the firm. The moment the firm gives a satisfactory explanation and produces the person who has deposited the amount, then the burden of the firm is discharged and in that case that credit entry cannot be treated to be the income of the firm for the purposes of income-tax. It is open to the Assessing Officer to take appropriate action under Section 69 of the Act, against the person who has not been able to explain the investment. In the present case, there is the concurrent finding of both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as of the Tribunal that the firm has satisfactorily explained the aforesaid entries, 7. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the aforesaid question is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5.4 Thus, the Hon'ble High Court has observed that once it is established that the amount has been invested by a particular person then the responsibility of the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, the initial burden can be said to be discharged by the applicant- assessee. In view of the facrial matrix and legal position, we are satisfied that the aforesaid two questions are questions of law arising out of the order and are required to be referred for our opinion. 5.5 Thus, the onus of the assessee is to satisfy the authorities as to the identity of the third party and also supply the relevant evidences to show prima facie that the entries were not fictitious the initial burden is said to be discharged by the assessee. The burden then shifted on the Department to show as to why the assessee s case cannot be accepted and why it must be held that entry, though purporting in the name of the third party still represent income of the assessee from suppressed source. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Dharamdev Finance P. Ltd. (supra) has considered the issue of addition made under section 68 of the Act in Para 5 to 9 as under: 5. Question (B) and (C) require consideration together. On account of certain cash credits, the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs. 3,54,70,163/-. Out of this total amount, aggregate amount of cash credit in respect of 10 persons of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving PA Number. In rebuttal of this position, nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. s Grounds nos. 4 and 5 of the Revenue's appeal are dismissed. 7. As could be noticed from the orders of both the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal, in this entire addition of 's.3.55 crore(rounded off), the names of 52 persons were reflected in the books of assessee respondent. The authorities having found the material on record, confirmed the names and addresses as well as the details of the accounts as also in the most of the Cases PAN numbers, coupled with the fact that amounts were received by wy o account payee cheque, chose not to question the said amount. Question essentially based on factual natrix presented before the authority and as they have rightly appreciated both these aspects, no question of law crises. 8. With respect to questions (D) and (E), addition of Rs. 1.45 crore (rounded off) on the basis of some newspapers found where the (rounded of hat Dharamdev Finance Pvt. Ltd received total sum of Rs. 1.44 crore and cash transaction as per this noting had taken p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther CIT nor the Tribunal committed any error in appreciating the facts which were presented before both of them. As the amount had already been owned by the proprietor of Satya Developers who had not only accepted such amount but had also offered the same for the purpose of tax which were duly recorded in the books of Satya developers the same cannot be taxed twice. Thus, no question of law arises. 5.6 Once the assessee has produced the PAN and confirmation of the creditor as well as bank account statement, the assessee discharged its initial onus to prove identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. When the transactions are verified from the bank account of the creditors as well as of the assessee, then the genuineness of the transactions are also established in the absence of any contrary material having brought on record by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has taken a consistent view in CIT v/s Sanjay J. Thakkar (supra) in Para 2 to 3 as under: 2.Mr Tanvish U. Bhatt, the learned standing counsel for the appellant revenue has submitted that the two parties in whose case deposits are found in the books of each of the respondent assessee s do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year ... 12.1. From a reading of section 68, as extracted above, it is that if an amount is credited in the books of an assessee maintained from any previous year and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax, as the income of the assessee of the relevant previous year. 13. Section 68 of the Act has received considerable attention of the courts. It has been held that it is necessary for an assessee to prove prima facie the transaction which results in a cash credit in his bocks of account. Such proof would include proof of identity of the creditor, capacity of such creditor to advance the money and lastly, genuineness of the transaction. Thus, in order to establish receipt of credit in cash, as per requirement of section 68, the assessee has to exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness of the creditor as well as genuineness of the transactions and the burden is shifted on the AO to prove the contrary. The amendment in section 68 of the Act by Finance Act 2022 is applicable w.e.f 01/04/2023 and, therefore, the same is not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. 5.9 In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in CIT v/s P. Mohankala (supra). It is pertinent to note that the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s P. Mohankala (supra), has not disputed the ratio of the judgment rendered in CIT v/s Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (supra) as well as in CIT v/s P.K. Noorjahan (supra) vide Para 14 17 as under: 14. In CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 155.CTR (SC) 509 : (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) this Court while construing s. 69 of the Act observed that the intention of Parliamente in enacting s. 69 was to confer a discretion on the ITO in the matter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee as the income of the assessee and the ITO is not obliged to as at such source of investment as income in every case where the explanation offered by the assessee is fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case rather the ratio laid down in CIT v/s P. K. Noorjahan (supra) and CIT v/s Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (supra) are applicable in the present case in hand. After considering all these facts and case law cited by the assessee, the CIT(A) has given its concluding finding in Para 7.8 which is reproduced below: 7.8 In the case of appellant loan creditors are all assessed to tax of loan received is through proper banking channel. Amount Confirmation of loans are submitted. Loan creditors have owned up the transaction of loan given by giving confirmation. No shred of evidence is brought on record to discredit legal evidence. Loan creditors are properly recorded in regular books of account maintained on day to day basis. Books of account are not rejected and income from business as shown in the return has been accepted without inviting any adverse observation. It has not been alleged that assessee has earned income over and above from any activity and such money is brought in the name of loan creditors. Considering evidence on record no addition u/s 68 can be made in the case of appellant. Onus to explain cash credits in terms of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntained from any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year... 12.1. From a reading of section 68, as extracted above, it is seen that if an amount is credited in the books of an assessee maintained from any previous year and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax, as the income of the assessee of the relevant previous year. 13. Section 68 of the Act has received considerable attention of the courts. It has been held that it is necessary for an assessee to prove prima facie the transaction which results in a cash credit in his books of account. Such proof would include proof of identity of the creditor, capacity of such creditor to advance the money and lastly, genuineness of the transaction. Thus, in order to establish receipt of credit in cash, as per requirement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer noticed that the balance sheet of the assessee showed the receipt of unsecured loans. The assessee was asked to furnish the evidence regarding identity, creditability and genuineness of the source of its income. Pursuant thereto, the assessee disclosed that the amount was borrowed from TIL. The acknowledgement of the return filed by TIL showed that it had returned an income of Rs. 2,904 in the assessment year in question and a loss of Rs. 18,677 in the assessment year 1996 97 which created doubts about the TIL's creditworthiness. Accordingly, TIL was asked to furnish the source of its lending. The TIL intimated that the amount lent to the assessee had in turn been borrowed from 'TCL', the address of which was the same as TIL. The letter containing the summons sent by registered post (speed post) to TCL was received back unserved with the remarks 'not available.' The AO then concluded that TCL was not a genuine party which could have lent the money to TIL, which in turn lent the said amount to the assessee. It was, therefore, concluded that 'the entire chain of lending and borrowing was bogus.' Accordingly, amount of unsecured loan was tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e further enquiries and over looked the factual aspects that the assessee has discharged the initial burden placed by furnishing the details. The information submitted by the assessee satisfied the three ingredients of provisions of Sec. 68 of the Act. Further the A.O. dealt on the loan transactions and alleged as non genuine and treated as unexplained cash credit U/sec68 of the Act. Whereas the unsecured loan was repaid through account payee / banking channels in the subsequent financial year which is not disputed by the revenue and in the year of repayment of loan, the revenue has accepted returned income of the asssessee and passed the order u/sec143(1)of the Act on 17-10 2016. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has substantiated the stand by submitting the details before the A.O. and CIT(A) and discharged the burden. We considering the facts, circumstances, evidences and the ratio of the judicial decisions referred in the above paragraphs set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer to delete the addition of unsecured loan and allow the grounds of appeal in favour of the assessee. 13. The decision referred to hereinabove fully supports the case of asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has challenged the addition deleted by learned CIT(A) at ₹ 10,09,988, made under section 14A of the Act. 17. The Assessing Officer has discussed the addition at Para 5.2 to 5.2.7 at Page 6 to 9 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer has computed disallowance to be made under section 14A of the Act at ₹ 25,99,737. The aforesaid sum comprising of two amounts being ₹ 10,09,988, on account of interest in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) of Income Tax Rules, 1962, and further sum of ₹ 15,89,749, under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The average amount of investment to make disallowance under section 14A has been computed by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 31.79 crore. The Assessing Officer while making another addition at ₹ 5,37,962, at Para 5.3.3 has noted and accepted that own funds/non-interest borrowed funds with the assessee at ₹ 62.55 crore. The learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition pertaining to interest under section 14A of the Act by following the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) and discussed the subject matter at Para 4.2 at Pages 63 to 68. 18. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere with the judgment of the High Court in regard to the first question. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed in regard to the first question. 21. The ratio laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in its judgment and the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) is squarely applicable to the case of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) has correctly deleted the addition made. Respectfully following the same, we find no merit in the ground no.3, raised by the Revenue. 22. In ground no.4, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 5,37,962, out of claim of interest at ₹ 18,38,643, paid on borrowed funds. 23. The Assessing Officer has discussed the addition at Para 5.3.3 of assessment order. In ground of appeal, it has been observed that ₹ 17.85 crore has not been substantiated to be out of non-interest bearing fund. The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has paid interest at ₹ 18,38,643. The Assessing Officer, by computing ratio of borrowed fund as against own fund/non-interest bearing funds @1.42% has computed that ₹ 25.35 lakh has been used for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the interest free funds available to the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment. Hence, it could be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with the assessee. The Tribunal has also followed its own order for Assessment Year 2002-03. 8. In view of the above findings, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court in regard to the first question. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed in regard to the first question. 27. The ratio laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court and decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in CIT v/s Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 240 (Bom.) is squarely applicable to the facts in the case of the assessee. In our opinion, the learned CIT(A) has correctly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we find no merit in the ground no.4, raised by the Revenue and accordingly the same is dismissed. 28. In ground no.5, Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 9,99,999, being sundry balances written-of. 29. The Assessing Officer has discussed the addition a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract reproduced in the appellate order fully supports the case of assessee. Extract of order of the learned CIT(A) at Para 4.5 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: 4.5 The ground of appeal no.14 is that the AO has made a mistake by making a disallowance of Rs. 9,99,999/- which is sundry balance written off. During the assessment proceedings, the O noticed that the appellant has claimed Rs. 9,99,999/- towards sundry balances written off. When asked by the AO to explain further, the appellant replied that an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid to M/s Cold Cargo Express Logistics Ltd earlier which has been written off during the relevant FY 2013-14. The AO was not satisfied with the appellant s reply and held that said amount was not incurred for the purpose of business and accordingly disallowed the same and added it to the appellant s income. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant s AR has explained that in FY 2010-11, the appellant entered into a Shareholders Agreement with M/s Cold Cargo Express Logistics Ltd with the intention to invest in the business of cold storage of frozen foods and items and managing logistics. However, subsequently the two parties did not agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, had clearly found that it was only as a result of the compromise that the respondent became entitled to remain in possession of the demised land. Its liability also became ascertained only at that point of time. It cannot be disputed that the respondent in incurring the expenditure had acted in the interest of and for the purpose of its business. The expenditure was not laid out for any purpose other than that of carrying on the business. The deduction was properly admissible under section 10 (2)(xv) of the Act and the matter being self-evident the High Court was fully justified in declining to accede to the prayer made under section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Section 10(2)(xv) of the old Act corresponds to section 37(1) of the present Act. Our above conclusion is fortified by the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the said decision. For the aforesaid reasons the question is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee. The appeal is thus allowed. The facts in the instant case are similar to those in the cited case and therefore the appellant gets support from the above cited judgement. The proposed investment in M/s Cold Cargo Express Logistics Ltd was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|