{"id":4772,"date":"2012-04-23T06:14:26","date_gmt":"2012-04-23T06:14:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=4772"},"modified":"2012-04-23T06:14:26","modified_gmt":"2012-04-23T06:14:26","slug":"cit-vs-punjab-breweries-ltd-punjab-haryana-high-court-tribunals-order-not-dealing-with-finding-of-sham-transaction-is-perverse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-punjab-breweries-ltd-punjab-haryana-high-court-tribunals-order-not-dealing-with-finding-of-sham-transaction-is-perverse\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Punjab Breweries Ltd (Punjab &#038; Haryana High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=701\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=701&varname2=punjab_breweries_vijay_mallya_sham_transaction.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (punjab_breweries_vijay_mallya_sham_transaction.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nTribunal&#8217;s order not dealing with finding of &#8220;sham&#8221; transaction is &#8220;perverse&#8221;<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The AO disallowed payments made by the assessee to M\/s Blue Chip &#038; Co towards &#8220;C&#038;F handling charges&#8221; on the ground that the <em>transactions were a &#8220;sham&#8221; and intended to provide interest-free funds to Vijay Mallya &#038; his wife Samira Mallya<\/em>. This was confirmed by the CIT (A) though the Tribunal allowed the claim  on the ground that a similar issue had been allowed in the earlier years. On appeal by the department, HELD reversing the Tribunal:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>It is <strong>not in public interest<\/strong> to accept such a claim when there is no evidence of rendering any service by Blue Chip &#038; Co to the assessee. The <strong>sole object of diverting funds to Blue Chip &#038; Co was to facilitate passing of funds as interest free loan to Vijay Mallya and Samira Mallya<\/strong>. The agreement between the assesee and Blue Chip was found to be a &#8220;<strong>sham transaction<\/strong>&#8221; by the AO &#038; CIT (A). The Tribunal committed grave error by recording the order as if it is a consent order though the DR had categorically defended the AO &#038; CIT (A)&#8217;s order. Also, the earlier orders of the Tribunal had been challenged before the High Court. Therefore the findings of the Tribunal are wholly erroneous, cryptic, perverse, laconic and perfunctory.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It is <strong>not in public interest<\/strong> to accept such a claim when there is no evidence of rendering any service by Blue Chip &#038; Co to the assessee. The <strong>sole object of diverting funds to Blue Chip &#038; Co was to facilitate passing of funds as interest free loan to Vijay Mallya and Samira Mallya<\/strong>. The agreement between the assesee and Blue Chip was found to be a &#8220;<strong>sham transaction<\/strong>&#8221; by the AO &#038; CIT (A). The Tribunal committed grave error by recording the order as if it is a consent order though the DR had categorically defended the AO &#038; CIT (A)&#8217;s order. Also, the earlier orders of the Tribunal had been challenged before the High Court. Therefore the findings of the Tribunal are wholly erroneous, cryptic, perverse, laconic and perfunctory<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-punjab-breweries-ltd-punjab-haryana-high-court-tribunals-order-not-dealing-with-finding-of-sham-transaction-is-perverse\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4772","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4772"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4772\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}