Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 ... vs Rakesh Ramniklal Sheth[As Per Hon'Ble ... on 12 February, 2019
"8. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant
material available on record. First of all we note that the assessee company
had issued its shares during the year under consideration at premium to
certain companies in lieu of the shares held by the said companies and thus
there was no inflow of cash involved in these transactions. And this
transactions were entered into in the books of account of the assessee
company by way of journal entries and it did not involve any credit to the
cash account. The learned CIT DR at the time of hearing has not brought
anything on record to rebut or controvert this finding of fact. He however has
contended by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court
in the case of V.I.S.P. (P) Ltd. (supra) thut section 68 was still applicable in
the present case involving credit to the share capital and share premium
amount. It is however observed that the facts involved in the case of V.L.S.P.
(P) Ltd. were different in us much as the liability in question in the said case
represented trading liability of the assessee accruing as a result of
purchases made by the assessee during the relevant year and since the
said liability was found to be a bogus liability, addition made by the AO
was held to be sustainable by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, so
this case law does not help the Revenue.