For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The CIT after examining the evidence, for the various reasons given in his order, deleted the addition. Revenue submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly granted relief in this case. He submitted that the assessee could not prove the creditworthiness of the share applicant companies. He argued that the directors of the companies have not appeared before the Assessing Officer despite issue of summons u/s 131 of the Act and hence the genuineness could not be proved by the assessee. All the share applicants had sufficient funds in the form of capital and reserve and surplus to invest. The transaction have been made through banking channels and duly recorded in the books of account and reflected in the Audited Financial Statements. Held that—The identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions have been proved by the assessee. No contrary evidence is brought on record by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances the addition in question cannot be sustained.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961—In the instant case, the AO made addition of the entire share capital received by the assessee, u/s 68 of the Act.

The CIT after examining the evidence, for the various reasons given in his order, deleted the addition.

Revenue submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly granted relief in this case. He submitted that the assessee could not prove the creditworthiness of the share applicant companies. He argued that the directors of the companies have not appeared before the Assessing Officer despite issue of summons u/s 131 of the Act and hence the genuineness could not be proved by the assessee.

All the share applicants had sufficient funds in the form of capital and reserve and surplus to invest. The transaction have been made through banking channels and duly recorded in the books of account and reflected in the Audited Financial Statements.

Held that—The identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions have been proved by the assessee. No contrary evidence is brought on record by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances the addition in question cannot be sustained.[INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9 (2) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. GOLDSTAR TRACOM PVT. LTD.] [2018] [7] [ITCD Online] [25] [ITAT KOLKATA]

The CIT after examining the evidence, for the various reasons given in his order, deleted the addition. Revenue submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly granted relief in this case. He submitted that the assessee could not prove the creditworthiness of the share applicant companies. He argued that the directors of the companies have not appeared before the Assessing Officer despite issue of summons u/s 131 of the Act and hence the genuineness could not be proved by the assessee. All the share applicants had sufficient funds in the form of capital and reserve and surplus to invest. The transaction have been made through banking channels and duly recorded in the books of account and reflected in the Audited Financial Statements. Held that—The identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions have been proved by the assessee. No contrary evidence is brought on record by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances the addition in question cannot be sustained.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961—In the instant case, the AO made addition of the entire share capital received by the assessee, u/s 68 of the Act.

The CIT after examining the evidence, for the various reasons given in his order, deleted the addition.