Direct Tax
Consulting
ESG Advisory
Indirect Tax
Growth Advisory
Internal Audit
BFSI Audit
Industry Audit
Valuation
RBI Services
SEBI Services
IRDA Registration
AML Advisory
IBC Services
NBFC Compliance
IRDA Compliance
Finance & Accounts
Payroll Compliance Services
HR Outsourcing
LPO
Fractional CFO
General Legal
Corporate Law
Debt Recovery
Select Your Location
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal of Delhi pronounced a judgement on 25th October 2022 in the case titled DCIT Vs. Intuitent Online Venture Pvt. Ltd, wherein the revenue had filed an appeal against the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) order.
The article discusses the facts, issues and the final judgement produced in the case to provide a better understanding regarding the aspects covered in the case.
Table of Contents
If, as per the circumstances and facts in the case, the CIT(A) was correct in law in deleting the additions of Rs.2 crore on account of the disallowance of investment made in the company as Share Capital u/s 68 of the IT Act 1961.
The appellant craved for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal prior to or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
The Hon’ble Judge of the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A), at the time of deleting the addition, had given a categorical finding that during the assessment proceedings assessee had filed various documents pointing out the receipt of the application money, which clearly proved that the money was invested by 2 investors based in Mauritius which are the companies registered under Companies Act and also registered under SEBI (Venture Capital Fund) Regulation 1996 (“SEBI VC REGS”). Another finding of the CIT(A) was regarding the fact that Seedfund International was a trust registered under the SEBI (Venture Capital Fund) Regulation, and it files its ITR in India. He has further given a finding that the identity of the share application cannot be doubted. Also, the creditworthiness was well established, and the AO did not dispute the genuineness of the transaction. The finding of the CIT(A) regarding the failure of the AO in bringing any argument to account the plethora of documentary evidence submitted by the assessee., Revenue has not pointed out any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A), and therefore, the current tribunal did not interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) and thus, the Ground of Revenue is dismissed
The judgement clearly provides that till the time the creditworthiness of the investor and the genuineness of the transaction is proved, the AO cannot make any additions as per section 68 of the ITA Act, which was supported by CIT (A) and ITAT Delhi, thereby dismissing the appeal of the revenue that questioned the deletion of the additions made by the AO as per section 68 Act of the Act.
Read Our Article: Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing for NBFCs
With the rising inflation rates and various other economic factors, wealthy Americans are incre...
Before approaching the new suppliers or any other third parties, you should always go for the v...
With the increasing landscape of Fintech Companies, it is increasingly vital that fintech compl...
This blog gives a detailed description through an audit report for industrial waste by examinin...
On 1st March 2024, the IRDAI came up with a notification via F. No. IRDAI/Reg/5/199/2024 for Bi...
Are you human?: 4 + 7 =
Easy Payment Options Available No Spam. No Sharing. 100% Confidentiality
The Bangalore Income tax appellate tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the appellant in the case Enzen Global So...
09 Nov, 2022
Tax is the primary source of revenue for Government in India, and thus, various forms of income are taxable under t...
23 Oct, 2019
Chat on Whatsapp
Hey I'm Suman. Let's Talk!