COURT: | Delhi High Court |
CORAM: | S. Muralidhar J, Vibhu Bakhru J |
SECTION(S): | 68 |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | bogus share capital, share application money, share premium |
COUNSEL: | C. S. Aggarwal |
DATE: | November 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | November 29, 2015 (Date of publication) |
AY: | 2007-08, 2008-09 |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
S. 68 (share capital): (i) It is a fallacy to assume that a company which has not commenced business has unaccounted money, (ii) Fact that investors have a common address is not relevant, (iii) Fact that shares were subsequently sold at reduced rate is not relevant |
There is a basic fallacy in the submission of the Revenue about the precise role of the Assessee, Five Vision. The broad sweeping allegation made is that “the Assessee being a developer is charging on money which is taken in cash”. This, however, does not apply to the Assessee which appears to be involved in the construction of a shopping mall. In fact for the AYs in question, the Assessee had not commenced any business. The construction of the mall was not yet complete during the AYs in question. The profit and loss account of the Assessee for all the three AYs, which has been placed on record, shows that only revenue received was interest on the deposits with the bank. Assessee is, therefore, right in the contention that the basic presumption of the Revenue as far as the Assessee is concerned has no legs to stand. Correspondingly, the further allegation that such ‘on money’ was routed back to the mainstream in the form of capital has also to fail
Recent Comments