Commissioner held that while completing assessment, AO had only verified identity of share applicant, however, he had failed to verify second and third limb of transactions, i.e., genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of foreign entity. Therefore he passed a revision order u/s.263 setting aside assessment. On appeal Tribunal held that the AO had made enquiry by seeking information from Switzerland Tax Authorities through proper channel of FT & TR division of CBDT, for exchange of information so as to verify identity, source of funds and creditworthiness of holding company and its promoters and those information was made available by Swiss Authorities from financial statements of foreign company. Besides, assessee had explained source from where its foreign holding company had made investment which was assets received from its investors by way of subordinated and conditioned loan. Transaction cannot be regarded as bogus or sham transactions. Accordingly the revision order is set aside. (AY. 2006-2007 to 2010– 2011)
Bycell Telecommunications India (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT, (2018) 193 TTJ 565 / 90 taxmann.com 268/( 2019) 174 DTR 97 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Cash credits- Share capital- AO had made enquiry by seeking information from Switzerland Tax Authorities through proper channel of FT & TR division of CBDT, for exchange of information so as to verify identity, source of funds and creditworthiness of holding company and its promoters- Revision is held to be not justified. [S. 68]