ACIT v. Deeksha Holding Ltd. - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 7786 (Del-HC)
REFERRED ACB India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1966 (Del-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1169 (Del-Trib) IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH N.K. BILLAIYA, A.M. & ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M. ACIT v. Deeksha Holding Ltd. ITA No. 9/DEL/2020 13 February, 2024 Appellant by: T. James Singson, CIT D.R. Respondent by: U.N. Marwah, C.A., & Praveen Goel, Advocate ORDER *N.K. Billaiya, A.M.* This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-3, New Delhi dated 14-10-2019 pertaining to assessment year 2016-17. 2. The grievance of the revenue read as under:- 1. 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,00,000 made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained sum credited to the books of account of the assessee, by ignoring the fact that genuineness of the transaction as well as immediate sources of funds was not proved with cogent evidences' 2. 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in restricting the addition to Rs. 11,40,351 as against the addition of Rs. 47,77,835 made by the assessing officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the legal position that entire investments should be considered while computing the disallowance under section 14A.' 3. 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses of Rs. 1,75,83,247 made by the assessing officer in absence of direct nexus between income earned and expenses incurred. 4. 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance of long-term capital loss of Rs. 2,90,32,823 made by the assessing officer, without considering the fact that the transaction of sale of shares was not genuine and the same was done only to claim set off against long-term capital gain arising from sale of property.' 5 'The appellant craves to add, amend or forgo any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.' 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in business of trading in shares, sale of paintings and other income includes sale of vegetables, car higher charges, income from Goa Villas and sale of old newspaper etc. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1169 (Del-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH

N.K. BILLAIYA, A.M. & ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.

ACIT v. Deeksha Holding Ltd.

ITA No. 9/DEL/2020

13 February, 2024

Appellant by: T. James Singson, CIT D.R.

Respondent by: U.N. Marwah, C.A., & Praveen Goel, Advocate

ORDER

N.K. Billaiya, A.M.

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-3, New Delhi dated 14-10-2019 pertaining to assessment year 2016-17.

2. The grievance of the revenue read as under:-

1. 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,00,000 made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained sum credited to the books of account of the assessee, by ignoring the fact that genuineness of the transaction as well as immediate sources of funds was not proved with cogent evidences'

2. 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in restricting the addition to Rs. 11,40,351 as against the addition of Rs. 47,77,835 made by the assessing officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the legal position that entire investments should be considered while computing the disallowance under section 14A.'

3. 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses of Rs. 1,75,83,247 made by the assessing officer in absence of direct nexus between income earned and expenses incurred.

4. 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance of long-term capital loss of Rs. 2,90,32,823 made by the assessing officer, without considering the fact that the transaction of sale of shares was not genuine and the same was done only to claim set off against long-term capital gain arising from sale of property.'

5 'The appellant craves to add, amend or forgo any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.'

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in business of trading in shares, sale of paintings and other income includes sale of vegetables, car higher charges, income from Goa Villas and sale of old newspaper etc.