TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ratio has now been followed in the case of Jannhvi Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2008 (1) TMI 314 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and very recently in Bright Star (2008 (7) TMI 442 - ITAT BOMBAY-H) wherein held that section 45(2) talks about conversion of investment to SIT but does not involve the reverse situation, i.e. where SIT is converted into investment. The coordinate Bench at Mumbai then held that date of conversion cannot be taken to compute LTCG. Since the case of the assessee is identical on facts, respectfully, therefore, following the above decisions no reason to deviate from the decision taken by the CIT(A) that only the date of first holding, i.e. date of acquisition of the shares as SIT, and not the subsequent period of holding as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,072 shares was treated as STCG and concluded that gain of Rs. 16.81 crores on the sale of 3,76,920 shares were LTCG and the gain of Rs. 14.48 crores on the sale of 3,44,072 shares were STCG. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the CIT(A), who, after detailed discussion placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jannhavi Investments Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 276 (Bom) and ACIT vs. Bright Star Investment (P) Ltd. reported in 24 SOT 288 (Mum), wherein it was held that in absence of specific provision in section 45(2) to deal with a situation where shares were converted from SIT to investment and later on sold at profit, it was not proper to compute business income till date of conversion of shares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eckoned, irrespective of the character of the asset at that point of time, be it capital asset within the meaning of sec 2(14) or not. [Pls see Kalyani Exports Investments P Ltd. / Jannhavi Investments Pvt Ltd Ors vs. DCIT 78 ITD 95, 140 (Pune)(TM) also approved in 304 ITR 276 (Bom)] (2) The jurisdictional High Court in Keshavji Karsondas vs. CIT 207 ITR 737 (Bom) held that an asset cannot be acquired first as a non-capital asset at one point of time and again as a capital asset at a different point of time. There can be only one acquisition of an asset and that is when the assessee acquires it for the first time, irrespective of its character at that point of time. There cannot be two dates of acquisition for the same asset one as no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee on this issue. 8. The department, being aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A), is before the ITAT. 9. Before us, the DR, reiterated the arguments of the AO and the AR fully supported the order of the CIT(A). 10. After hearing the arguments from either side, we find that the issue impugned before us is very limited, i.e. whether for the purpose of computing LTCG, the date of acquisition of shares (assets) is to be taken or the date of conversion of shares (assets) from SIT to investment, is to be taken for computing the period of twelve months. 11. This issue was first impugned in the case of Keshavji Karsondas vs. CIT reported in 207 ITR 737 (Bom), where the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that cost of acquisition, is to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
