ITO, WARD-2(2), BIKANER vs. M/S. MANDA MOTORS PVT. LTD., BIKANER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 100/JODH/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 July 2023AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal fell under the category of low tax effect and was therefore not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,08,61,500/- made on account of preference share premium. The addition was made under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961, as unexplained bogus credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of preference share premium as unexplained bogus credit under Section 68 is sustainable, especially when the assessee incurred a loss.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sarda-C.A
For Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT-DR
Hearing: 06/07/2023

(Virtual hearing) Assessee By Shri Anil Sarda-C.A. Revenue By Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 06/07/2023 07/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM The Revenue has filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner [herein after “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 30.10.2017 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,08,61,500/- made on account of being preference share premium as unexplained bogus credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, specially when the assessee company had incurred loss during ITO Vs. M/s Manda Motors Pvt. Ltd. the year under considering, the balance of share premium cannot be included in shareholders fund which calculating valuation of share and balance of share premium cannot be considered as part of shareholder funds?”

3.

During the course of hearing, the ld. DR submitted to withdraw the appeal since it is falling under low tax effect.

4.

On the other hand ld. AR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. The Bench heard both the parties during the virtual hearing and noted that this appeal as per ld. DR submission falls under the low tax effect which is not maintainable. In this view of the matter the appeal of the Department is dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →