C I T-1, Jaipur v. Shalimar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd - 2017-LL-0504-82

Citation	2017-LL-0504-82
Appellant Name	C I T-1, Jaipur
Respondent Name	Shalimar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	04/05/2017
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	unexplained share application money
Bot Summary:	By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Counsel for the respondent contended that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur vs. M/s Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd., decided on 25th April, 2017, which is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports Ltd., reported in 299 ITA 268, and the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s VTC Leasing Finance Ltd., in DB Income Tax Appeal No. 551/2008, decided on 27th January, 2017. In that view of the matter, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 9 / 2011 C I T-1 Jaipur Appellant Versus M/S Shalimar Buildcon Pvt Ltd Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 11 / 2011 C I T-1 Jaipur Appellant Versus M/S Shalimar Buildcon Pvt Ltd Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Aditya Vijay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargeiya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 04/05/2017 1. By way of these appeals, appellant has assailed judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has partly allowed appeal of assessee. 2. This Court while admitting matter has framed following question of law:- Whether Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- which was made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by (2 of 2) [ ITA-9/2011] CIT(A) appeal on account of unexplained share application money under Section 68, which was nothing but undisclosed by obtaining accommodation entries from B.C. Purohit & Company group, after paying commission for same? In Income Tax Appeal No. 11/2011 Whether Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- which was made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) appeal on account of unexplained share application money under Section 68, which was nothing but undisclosed by obtaining accommodation entries from B.C. Purohit & Company group, after paying commission for same? 3. Counsel for respondent contended that issue is squarely covered by decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur vs. M/s Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd., decided on 25th April, 2017, which is covered by decision of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., reported in (2008) 299 ITA 268 (SC), and decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s VTC Leasing & Finance Ltd., in DB Income Tax Appeal No. 551/2008, decided on 27th January, 2017. 4. In that view of matter, issue is answered in favour of assessee and against department. 5. appeals stand dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/132-133 C I T-1, Jaipur v. Shalimar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

Metadata

Judgment