THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -3 vs. FLEX INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/166/2018HC DelhiDLHC01499008201712 February 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court upheld the ITAT's order, finding no infirmity. It noted that a similar issue involving the same investor in a previous year was also upheld by the Court, treating it as a pure question of fact.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act concerning share application money. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the genuineness and creditworthiness of the investor, Shree Mahabir Management Services Pvt. Ltd.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT's deletion of additions made under Section 68 for share application money was justified, considering previous High Court judgments on similar facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 166/2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.

versus

FLEX INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. K.N. Ahuja, Adv.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R %

12.02.2018

The Revenue is aggrieved by the deletion ordered by the CIT(A) and the ITAT, in respect of additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) (to the extent of `10,35,50,000/-). The assessee had claimed in its returns that amounts were received through share applications from Shree Mahabir Management Services Pvt. Ltd. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation with respect to the genuineness of the transaction or the creditworthiness of the said investor and had added back the amount. The CIT(A) and the ITAT concurrently set aside the AO’s determination. The ITAT noted that in the ITA No.166/2018

Page 1 of 2

previous year 2006-07, similar additions had been set aside. That order of the ITAT (for the previous year) was upheld by this Court in its judgment dated 16.04.2015 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anshika Consultants Pvt. Ltd.; ITA No.467/2014 & connected cases). The said decision also indicates that the same investment made by Shree Mahabir Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (which is the sole entity whose investment/application money is the subject matter of Section 68 of the Act in the present case) was a share applicant. The Court had affirmed the ITAT’s decision. For the same reasons – spelt out in ITA No.467/2014, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity discernible in ITAT’s order; no question of law arises as the matter pertains to pure question of fact in the face of concurrent findings. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 12, 2018 kks

ITA No.166/2018

Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →