TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, to which his reply was that the relevant evidence was ignored. We requested Mr. Murarka to find out from the memorandum of appeal any ground alleging that any particular piece of evidence was ignored by the Tribunal. He replied that there is no such ground taken in the memorandum of appeal. He has even otherwise not been able to satisfy us that the view taken either by the Income-tax Officer or by the learned Appellate Tribunal is otherwise than on the basis of the evidence. The view taken both by the Income-tax Officer and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a reasonable view in the facts and circumstances of the case. – Decided against Assessee. - ITA No. 147 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2014 - GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA AND TAPASH MOOK ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble. Out of 82,863 detachable warrants, the assessee sold 13,000 detachable warrants at the rate of ₹ 55 each and, thus, realised a sum of ₹ 7,15,000. The balance 69,863 detachable warrants were retained by the assessee. In the facts of the case, the assessee contended, as would appear from the order of the learned Tribunal, that as far as sale of partly paid up 82,863 units of 18.5 per cent. non-convertible debentures , is concerned, since the assessee transferred these units only on the consideration of the said ISL agreeing to pay the remaining unpaid amount, i.e., the call money, the entire application money, amounting to Rs. l2 per debenture and which worked out to aggregate of ₹ 9,94,356, constituted short-term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tachable warrants were received by the assessee at no cost and, therefore, could not have been taken as a taxable income. He contended that the investment of a sum of ₹ 9,94,356, spent in applying for 82,863 non-convertible debentures was a total loss and should have been, accordingly, allowed as the short-term capital loss of the assessee. We are unable to see how can it be said that the detachable warrants were received by the assessee except at the cost of ₹ 12 subscribed by him. Mr. Murarka drew our attention to a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sri Krishna Dairy and Agricultural Farm v. CIT reported in [1988] 169 ITR 291 (AP). He drew our attention to the headnote which reads as follows : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision can also have no manner of application to the case before us. This takes care of the submissions made by Mr. Murarka. When the appeal was admitted the following four questions were framed : I. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the non-convertible debentures (NCD) of Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. (GACL) were not acquired or sold from the point of view of investment and/or in the course of investment by the assessee was justified and not perverse ? II. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative and the NCDs are held to be acquisition and sale of business stock and not investment, whether the cost of or loss in respect of the NCDs could be held to be cost of acquisition of detachable warrants (DWs), held to be capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
