DCIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AVS INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi dated 01.7.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s. 68 of the Act

amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/- received by the assessee company as a beneficiary of accommodation entries from 7 companies in question in the garb of share application money / premium.

1.2 Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that SK Jain/ V.K. Jain in their to 6997/Del/2014 and ITA Nos. 6998 to 7004/Del/2014 admitted before ITAT that the nature of their activities was of entry operators, thus there was no sanctity of confirmation of share application money provided by 3 companies under their control.

1.2 Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in accepting the creditworthiness of the 7 companies based merely on their balance sheet entries despite the fact that these companies were used as conduit by Sh. SK Jain / Sh. Vinay Jain for providing accommodation entry.

2. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend,

modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.

of investigation report received from ADIT, Unit VI(2), wherein it was informed that Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain and Sh. Virendera Kumar Jain and companies controlled by them are engaged in providing accommodation entries. On the basis of said information, the assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act and notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act was issued on 17.4.2013. In response to the said notice, assessee filed a letter dated 6.6.2013 stating that return filed u/s. 139 of the Act declaring NIL income may be treated as return filed in response to 2 notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. Assessment u/s. 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was made on 30.3.2015 determining total income at Rs. 40,00,000/-.

The addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- was made on account of share application money received by the assessee from various companies. Aggrieved with the addition, assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 1.7.2016 deleted the addition by partly allowing the appeal of the assessee.

4. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions

raised in the grounds of appeal.

5. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records,

especially the order of the Ld. CTI(A). I find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed the issue in dispute by considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and adjudicated the issues in dispute from page no. 25 to 34 of the impugned order. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-

“I have considered the submission of the appellant and observation made by the Assessing Officer. The facts of the case are that the appellant company had received share application money of Rs. 40,00,000/- from following seven entities during the year:

S.No. Name of the company Amount of the Share Capital

2 M/s Mega Top Promoters Pvt. Ltd Rs.7,OO,OOO/-

3 M/s Victory Software Pvt. Ltd. Rs.7,OO,OOO/-

6. MIs Trustworthy Viniyog Pvt. Ltd. Rs.5,OO,OOOI-

7 M/s Deshbandhu Suppliers Pvt. Ltd RS.5,OO,OOO/-

Rs. 40,OO,OOOI-

It is mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that the Investigation Wing carried out search in the case of Sh. Surender Kr. Jain and Sh.

Virender Kr. Jain group of companies and it was revealed that companies controlled by them have provided accommodation entries in the form of share application money. On the basis of which it has been alleged that accommodation entries were provided by these companies namely Mis Zenith Automotive Pvt Ltd, Mega Top Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Victory Software Pvt. Ltd. to the appellant company. The Assessing Officer after considering the documents and submissions made by the appellant and response received in response to summons issued u/s 131 to Zenith Automotive Pvt. Ltd, Mega Top Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Victory Software Pvt. Ltd. and on the basis of Inspector's enquiry report added Rs. 4O,OO,OOO/- as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the appellant u/s 68 of the I.T. Act.

The appellant filed submissions during the course of re-assessment proceedings and the details of share application money received from the above mentioned six companies. It is also mentioned by the appellant that it had filed confirmation from the said companies, their Permanent Account Number, copy of the return of income filed by investor companies, details of the cheque and the bank statement of the appellant as well as the companies from whom share application money was received. The appellant further stated that money was received through banking channels and which was duly verified by the Assessing Officer. AR also stated that copies of share application form were furnished before the Assessing Officer along with the allotment of shares and Form No.2 filed with the Registrar of Companies. The appellant has submitted that the Assessing Officer has to examine the evidences furnished by the appellant and he has to arrive at his own conclusion The in-builts safeguard provided in Section 68 cannot be ignored by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer can add share application money as undisclosed income if no explanation is furnished by the assessee. However, in the case of appellant the explanation was furnished and it was incumbent of the Assessing Officer to examine the same and arrive at a conclusion. The AR of the appellant further submitted that by filing the relevant documents like share application form, form no.2 filed with ROC, confirmation of share applicant, Permanent Account Number, copy of the return of income filed by the investor companies, copy of bank statements, it has discharged its onus and the onus was shifted on the revenue to prove it otherwise.

The Assessing Officer has mentioned that on 25.3.2015 summons u/s 131 were sent through Inspector on test check basis on the entities namely Zenith Automotive Pvt. Ltd, Mega Top Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Victory Software Pvt. Ltd. at the addresses provided by the appellant to obtain personal deposition of the Directors for verifying the genuineness of the share capital received from them and also to verify the creditworthiness in view of the findings of the Investigation Wing. The Inspector in his report dated 25.03.2015 submitted that said companies are not existing at the given address and from local enquiries in the neighborhood their whereabouts could not be ascertained. The report of the Inspector was shown to the appellant and it was informed to the appellant that it has failed to prove the source of the share capital received during the year. The appellant vide letter dated 27/3/2015 stated that details of share capital has already been filed. Appellant has also mentioned that it has filed confirmation of all the companies dated 17.03.2015. However, on enquiry by the Inspector the said companies were not found existing at the given addresses.

With regard to above observations, the appellant has submitted that Assessing Officer has not proved that the documents filed in support of the identity of the parties were forged. The AO has not brought any evidence on record that the share applicants were not having creditworthiness or their genuineness has not been disproved. The appellant has further submitted that all the necessary documents, Permanent Account Number, I.T. Returns were submitted by the appellant. The appellant has relied upon the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. 329 ITR 271 wherein it is held that merely because assessee company fails to produce the Director of the shareholders companies cannot be ground for making additions in respect of share capital. The AR further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Fair Invest Ltd. wherein it is held that where AO fails to conduct enquiries and deal with the matter in depth after the affidavit / confirmation along with bank accounts were filed, then the assessment order cannot be sustained.

The appellant further submitted that during the year appellant has also received share application money from M/s Trimurti Vinmay Pvt. Ltd. RS.5,OO,OOO/-, Shyam Infratech Pvt. Ltd. RS.5,OO,OOO/-, Trustworthy Viniyog Pvt. Ltd. RS.5,OO,OOO/- and Deshbandu Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Rs.5,OO,OOO/-. All the above four companies are assessed to tax and appellant had furnished their confirmation, Permanent Account Number, bank statements, copy of the return of income and details of cheque no. through whom share application money was received. The appellant also filed copies of the share application form before Assessing Officer and details of the share allotment and form No. 2 filed with ROC with reference to allotment of shares.

The AR submitted that Assessing Officer did not call for any information from the said four parties and no summons uls 131 were issued. The appellant has fully established the nature of the entries and furnished evidence in support of the share application money received. Despite these facts, the Assessing Officer has made addition in respect of all the share application money received during the year. All these companies have submitted confirmation, to whomsoever it may concern, receipt of the share application money, copies of the bank statements wherefrom money was received by the appellant, copies of the return of income filed by all the companies with the Department, copies of the balance sheet of the companies to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction.

On going through the details filed by Zenith Automotive Pvt. Ltd., it is seen that this company is assessed to tax and has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 and the money has been received from Axis Bank Ltd., Rajender Nagar West Delhi Branch on 2204.2009. On going through the balance sheet of the said company, it is s en that this company has got share capital of RS.1,81,87,000/- and reserve and surplus of RS.15,15,60,000/- as on 31.03.2010. It has shown investment of RS.16,34,00,OOO/- in the balance sheet at sl. NO.3 in which the appellant company's name also appears.

On verification of the details filed by Mis Mega Top Promoters Pvt. Ltd., it is seen that this company has filed copy of return of income filed by it for AY 2010-11, confirmation of the share application money, copy of the bank statement of the said company with Axis Bank Ltd , Rajender Nagar West Delhi Branch wherefrom money of RS.7,00,000/- was given on 22.04.2009 to the appellant company. It is also seen from the balance sheet of the investor company that this company has got share capital of Rs 1,85,00,000/- and reserve and surplus of RS.14, 76,41,809/-. I has shown investments of RS.11,69,50,000/- as per Schedule 3 of the balance sheet In the Schedule 3 name of the appellant company appears as investee company.

On verification of the details filed by Victory Software Pvt. Ltd., it is seen the said company has invested RS.7,00,0001- in the appellant company for which through whom share application money was received. The appellant also filed copies of the share application form before Assessing Officer and details of the share allotment and form no.2 filed with ROC with reference to allotment of shares.

The AR submitted that Assessing Officer did not call for any information from the said four parties and no summons uls 131 were issued. The appellant has fully established the nature of the entries and furnished evidence in support of the share application money received. Despite these facts, the Assessing Officer has made addition in respect of all the share application money received during the year.

All these companies have submitted confirmation, to whomsoever it may concern, receipt of the share application money, copies of the bank statements wherefrom money was received by the appellant, copies of the return of income filed by all the companies with the Department, copies of the balance sheet of the companies to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction.

On going through the details filed by Zenith Automotive Pvt. Ltd., it is seen that this company is assessed to tax and has filed its return of income for AY. 10 2010-11 and the money has been received from Axis Bank Ltd., Rajender Nagar West Delhi Branch on 2204.2009. On going through the balance sheet of the said company, it is s en that this company has got share capital of RS.1,81,87,000/- and reserve and surplus of RS.15,15,60,000/- as on 31.03.2010. It has shown investment of Rs.16,34,00,000/- in the balance sheet at sl. NO.3 in which the appellant company's name also appears.

On verification of the details filed by MIs Mega Top Promoters Pvt. Ltd., it is seen that this company has filed copy of return of income filed by it for AY 2010-11, confirmation of the share application money, copy of the bank statement of the said company with Axis Bank Ltd , Rajender Nagar West Delhi Branch wherefrom money of RS.7,00,000/- was given on 22.04.2009 to the appellant company. It is also seen from the balance sheet of the investor company that this company has got share capital of Rs 1.85.00.000/- and reserve and surplus of RS.14,76,41 ,809/-. I has shown investments of Rs.11,69,50,000/- as per Schedule 3 of the balance sheet In the Schedule 3 name of the appellant company appears as invested company.

On verification of the details filed by Victory Software Pvt. Ltd., it is seen th the said company has invested Rs.7,00,000/- in the appellant company for which has filed confirmation copy of the return income filed for AY. 2010-11, copy of the Axis Bank statement, Rai.ender Nagar West Delhi Branch wherefrom 11 money of Rs.7,OO,000/- was given on 22.04.2009. It is also seen that this company has got a share capital of Rs.1,92,32,0001- in its balance sheet and has got reserve and surplus of Rs.17,22,26,886/-. It has shown investment in schedule 3 of Rs.18,70,00,500/- in its balance sheet. On going through schedule 3, it is seen that appellant company has shown investment of Rs.7,OO,000/- in share application money.

On verification of the details filed by Trimurti Vinmay Pvt Ltd., it is seen that this company has filed copy of share application form, confirmation, return of income filed by the said company for A Y. 2010-11, copy of the bank statement maintained with ING Vysya Bank Ltd. wherefrom the money was debited on 22.04.2009 of Rs.5,00,000/-, on verification of the balance sheet of the said company it is seen that it has got share capital of Rs. 75,38,150/-, reserve and surplus of Rs.14,13,60,265/-. It has shown investment of Rs.7,73,15,750/- vide Schedule 4 of the Balance Sheet.

On verification of the details filed by M/s Shri Shyam Infratech Pvt. Ltd, it is seen that this company has filed copy of share application form, confirmation, copy at return of income for A Y. 2010-11, copy of bank account maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Salt Lake Branch wherefrom the money of Rs.5,00,000/- was transferred on 21.04.2009. On verification of the balance sheet of the said company, it is seen that this company has got share capital of Rs.1 0,52,500/- and reserve and surplus of RS.1,82,13,865/-. It has shown investment of RS.1,87,OO,OOO/- in its balance sheet.

On verification of the details filed by M/s Trustworthy Viniyog Pvt. Ltd., it is seen that it has filed copy of share application form, ~py of confirmation, copy of the return of income filed by it for A.Y. 2010-11 and copy of the bank statement maintained with ING Vysya Bank wherefrom money of Rs.5,00,OOO/- was received by the appellant company on 22.04.2009. On going through the balance sheet of the said company it is seen that this company has got share capital of Rs. 73,88,100/- and reserve and surplus of Rs.13,85,15,456/-. It has shown investment of Rs.6,81,500/- in its balance sheet at Schedule 4.

On verification of details filed by M/s Deenbandhu Suppliers Pvt. Ltd, it is seen that this company has filed copy of share application form, confirmation, copy of the return of income for AY. 2010-11 filed with the Department, copy of the bank statement maintained with ING Vysya Bank, KKT Street Branch, Kolkata wherefrom the money of Rs5,00,0001- was transferred to appellant's account on 29.05.2009. On verification of the balance sheet of the said company it is seen that It has got share capital of RS.33,24,250/- and reserve and surplus of RS.6,13,08,639/- in its balance sheet. It has shown investment of Rs. 4,81,50,000/- in its balance sheet which includes the investment of RS.5,00,OOO/- made in the appellant company.

On the basis of above observation, it can be said that these investor companies have got their bank account, wherefrom the money was paid to the appellant company as share application money and such investments are reflected in their balance sheets. It is also seen that these companies have not only invested in the appellant company but they have also invested in the shares of other companies and such investments are reflected in their Balance Sheets.

The investments have been made out of the authorized share capital or loan received by these companies from other companies. The transactions have been done through account payee cheque and / or pay order issued from the bank accounts of the investor companies or through RTGS. Therefore, the observations of the Assessing Officer that the identity, capacity to advance money and genuineness of the transactions was not proved by the appellant is not based on the proper appreciations of the facts. On the basis of documents submitted by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings, it can safely be said that identity of the investor companies, capacity to advance money for share application and genuineness of transactions have been established and such companies have filed their return of income with the Department Therefore, the observations made by the Assessing Officer are not supported by any adverse evidence.

It is seen that appellant company has filed source to prove tile genuineness of the funds invested in the shares of the appellant company. The Assessing Officer had no information about the accommodation entry alleged to have been received by the appellant. There is no statement with reference to these companies that they were providing accommodation entries. There was no cash deposit found in the bank accounts of these companies. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of simply a letter received from Investigation Wing cannot be treated as accommodation entry and the addition cannot be sustained on the basis of such letter without bringing adverse materials on records. The appellant has furnished all necessary documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the investor company before Assessing Officer. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer uls 68 of the I.T. Act of Rs. 4O,OO,OOO/- is deleted.

The appellant has relied upon following judicial pronouncements in support of its contention wherein the share application money has been held to be genuine wherein it is held that if the appellant has filed copy of the confirmations, bank statements, copy of the return of income of the investor companies then in such cases share application money received is found to be genuine and no addition can be made in the case of recipient of share application money:

(a) ITO Vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd. dated

It was held "Once the identity of Shareholders have been established it cannot be added in the hands of Company unless any adverse evidence on record. Source of Source cannot be enquired from Assessee.

Additional evidence other than information received from Investigation

Wing must be brought on record by Assessing Officer."

In this case the appellant has established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions by filing necessary documents before the AO as well as before me, therefore, the ratio of the above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant's case and the addition made on account of share application money cannot be sustained.

(b) ITAT Delhi, ITO v . N.C. Cables Ltd. dated

2210.2014

It was held "Arguments and evidences provided by Assessee to substantiate transaction are genuine. AO did not find any evidence and had not given any basis. No detail of investigation done by Investigation

Wing was brought on record".

In the case of appellant no evidences has been brought on record by the AO to prove that share application money received by the appellant was accommodation entry. On the contrary the appellant has filed the copies of the balance sheet, copies of the return of income filed, confirmation of the transactions with the appellant company and copies of the bank statement wherefrom the money was received by the appellant. The AO has not brought any adverse Information on record to prove it otherwise, therefore, the ratio of this judgment is fully applicable to the appellant's case and the addition made on account of share application money received was not justified, therefore, the same is deleted

(c) ITAT Delhi, ITO v. Rakam Money Matters P. Ltd. ITA

No.2821/De1/2011 dated 16.10.2014

It was held" All the documents in respect of shareholders were filed AO had no evidence except the statement of third parties recorded by the Investigation"

In the case of appellant also all documents in respect of shareholders were filed before the AO by the appellant as well as the investors in response to notice u/s 133(6), therefore, the ratio of this judgment is squarely applicable in the case of appellant d) High Court of Delhi, CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. reported at 19taxrnann.corn 26 (2012) (Delhi)

It was held "Where assessee had given particulars of registration of investing / applicant companies, confirmation from share applicants; bank account details; and had shown payment through account payee cheques etc., it could be said that the assessee had discharges its initial onus and just because some of creditors I share applicants could not be found at address given, it would not give revenue a right to invoke section 68 without any additional material to support such a move".

In the case of appellant also particulars of share applicant companies like balance sheet, confirmation, bank statement, copy of the return of income were filed, therefore, the appellant has discharged its onus. Hence, ratio of this judgment is square applicable in the case of appellant. e) ITAT Chandigarh, ACIT v. Kisco Castings Pvt. Ltd. reported at 34 taxrnann.corn 37 (Copy Enclosed) (Pages 132/144).

It was held “Where Assessing Officer had failed to bring on record any relevant and credible material to neutralize documentary evidences filed by assessee, impugned addition was to be deleted"

In the case of appellant also the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any credible evidence on record to neutralize the evidences filed by the appellant, therefore, the addition cannot be sustained and ratio of the said judgment is squarely applicable in the case of appellant f) CIT Vs. Fair Finvest ltd. [2014) 44 taxmann.com 356 (Delhi) High Court of Delhi

"Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit - Assessment year

2002-03 - Where assessee had filed documents including certified copies issued by Registrar of Companies in relation to share application and affidavits of directors, Assessing Officer could not make addition on account of share application money solely on basis of investigation report

[In favour of assessee}

Where assessee adduces evidence in support of share application monies, it is open to Assessing Officer to examine it and reject it on tenable grounds. In case he wishes to rely on report of investigation authorities, some meaningful enquiry ought to be conducted by him to establish a link between assessee and alleged hawala operators.

Where assessee had filed documents including certified copies issued by Registrar of Companies In relation to share application, affidavits of directors, Form 2 filed with Registrar of Companies by such applicants, confirmations by applicants for company's shares, certificates by auditors, etc, Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition under section 68 on account of share application money merely on general inference to be drawn from the reading of the investigation report The least that Assessing Officer ought to have done was to enquire into matter by, if necessary, invoking his powers under section 131 summoning the share applicants or directors. In the case of appellant also the appellant has filed confirmation of transactions of share application money, copies of the balance sheets, copy of share application money to prove the genuineness of the transactions. On the other hand the Assessing Officer has not brought any credible evidence to contradict the information filed by the appellant, therefore, the ratio of this Judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant's case g) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Expo Globe India Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 208 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Share 'application money) - Assessment year 2000-01 - Assessee received share application money during relevant assessment year - Assessing Officer held that assessee had not given satisfactory explanation and included entire amount under section 68 - On appeal, assessee furnished income-tax returns, balance sheets, ROC particulars and bank account statements of shareholders – Commissioner (Appeals) considering said materials held that share application money or source of share application money had been satisfactorily explained and deleted addition - Tribunal confirmed order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether entire issue being purely factual, no interference was called for with Tribunal's order - Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of assessee)”

In the case of appellant the appellant has furnished income-tax returns, balance sheets, ROC particulars and bank account statements of shareholders and share application money and source of share application money had been satisfactorily explained and addition has been deleted. The ratio of the above judgment is squarely applicable to the appellant's case.

The appellant has also relied upon the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. 329 ITR 271 to submit that merely because appellant fails to produce the Directors of the share applicant companies the same cannot be ground for making addition in respect of share capital.

In view of the discussion made above and various judicial pronouncements cited above on the issue, it is held that appellant has received share application money from M/s Zenith Automotive Pvt. Ltd, M/s Mega Top Promoters Pvt. Ltd, M/s Victory Software Pvt. Ltd., M/s Trimurty Vinimay Pvt. l.td., M/s Shyam Infratech Pvt. Ltd., M/s Trustworthy Viniyog Pvt. Ltd., MIs Deshbandhu Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the finding given by the AO that these were accommodation entries and appellant had invested its own money was not based on any material fact available on record and same was not justified. Hence, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 4O,OO,OOO/- on account of share application money is deleted.”

5.1 On going through the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), I find that assessee company has filed source to prove the genuineness of the funds invested in the shares of the assessee company. The Assessing Officer had no information about the accommodation entry alleged to have been received by the appellant. There is no statement with reference to these companies that they were providing accommodation entries. There was no cash deposit found in the bank accounts of these companies. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of simply a letter received from Investigation Wing cannot be treated as accommodation entry and the addition cannot be sustained on the basis of such letter without bringing adverse materials on records. The assessee has furnished all necessary documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the investor company before Assessing Officer. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer uls

68 of the I.T. Act of Rs. 4O,OO,OOO/- was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). I further find that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has relied upon various judicial pronouncements in support of its contention as mentioned in the impugned order wherein the share application money has been held to be genuine wherein it is held that if the appellant has filed copy of the confirmations, bank statements, copy of the return of income of the investor companies then in such cases share application money received is found to be genuine and no addition can be made in the case of recipient of share application money. I further find that assessee has filed confirmation of the transactions of share application money, copies of the balance sheets, copy of share application money to prove the genuineness of the transactions.

However, on the other hand, the AO has not brought any credible evidence to contradict the information filed by the assessee, therefore, the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the following cases of which the ld. CIT(A) discussed in his impugned order :

(a) ITO Vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd. dated 01/4/2015 (b) ITAT Delhi, ITO v . N.C. Cables Ltd. dated 2210.2014 (c) ITAT Delhi, ITO v. Rakam Money Matters P. Ltd. ITA

No.2821/De1/2011 dated 16.10.2014 d) High Court of Delhi, CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. reported at 19taxrnann.corn 26 (2012) (Delhi) e) ITAT Chandigarh, ACIT v. Kisco Castings Pvt. Ltd. reported at 34 taxrnann.corn 37 (Copy Enclosed) (Pages 132/144). f) CIT Vs. Fair Finvest ltd. [2014) 44 taxmann.com 356 (Delhi) High

Court of Delhi g) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Expo Globe India Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 208 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI

5.2 I further note that Ld. CIT(A) in view of the above rightly held that the assessee has received share application money from M/s Zenith Automotive

Pvt. Ltd, M/s Mega Top Promoters Pvt. Ltd, M/s Victory Software Pvt. Ltd., M/s

Trimurty Vinimay Pvt. l.td., M/s Shyam Infratech Pvt. Ltd., M/s Trustworthy

Viniyog Pvt. Ltd., MIs Deshbandhu Suppliers Pvt. Ltd, hence, the finding given by the AO that these were accommodation entries and asessee had invested its own money was not based on any material fact available on record and same 24 was not justified. Hence, the addition of Rs. 4O,OO,OOO/- was deleted on account of share application money, which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I uphold the same.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03/1/2017.