×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
These cross appeals of assessee and Revenue are arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal No. CIT(A)-10/ITO-5(1)(1)/90/2015-16 vide order dated 20.02.2017. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, ward-5(1)(1), Mumbai (in short ‘ITO’/ AO’) for the A.Y. 2007-08 vide order dated 27.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
2. The first issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by AO of share capital receipt of ₹ 2.04 crores added by the AO as unexplained under section 68 of the Act. For this Revenue has raised the following five grounds: -
“1. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 204 lacs u/s 68 of the Incometax Act on account of non genuine share capital.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee failed to produce any subscriber for examination by the AO
3. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that Shri Pravin Kumar Jain was indulged in issuing bogus accommodation entries in different forms including share capital.
4. On the facts & circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 on account of non-genuine share capital received through the entities engaged in providing accommodation entries Oil commission basis on the basis of documentary evidences such as PAN. IT return. Confirmations, bank statement, etc. without considering the facts that subscriber was a paper company and not a genuine investor.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and iii law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 on account of nongenuine share capital received though the entities engaged in providing accommodation on the basis of documentary evidences such as PAN, IT return, Confirmations, Bank Statement etc. without considering the ration of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal and Mcdowell relied upon by the AO in his assessment order.
3. Briefly stated facts are that the AO noted in the assessment order that it has received information from DIT(I&CI), Mumbai that the assessee company is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries from 8 concerns under the grab of share application money of ₹ 2.04 crores. These companies were run, controlled and operated by one Pravin Kumar Jain, entry operators. The details of the following 8 parties are as under: -