Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Abhinandan Investment Ltd., Medicare Investments Ltd., Jindal Equipments Leasing & Cons. Serv.

Deduction of the losses - Tribunal directing AO to allow deduction of the losses at ₹ 111/- per NCD as a business loss - JISCO made certain arrangements with UTI in July 1994 according to which the allottees of NCDs could surrender all the NCDs to UTI after the application was made and UTI agreed to pay the balance allotment money (Rs.389/- per NCD) to JISCO and secure the NCD registered in its name - Held that:- The findings of the AO and CIT regarding the NCD funding not being at arms’ l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dend warrant which enabled them to an equity share of ₹ 200/- (in the case of JISCO NCDs) and based on a pre-determined formula in the second instance (Medicare) though the market price of the shares on those dates was higher. A chart indicating the gains by the assessees too was furnished by the learned counsel.

When JISCO came out with the NCDs right issue several other companies i.e., Apolo Tyres, Usha Ispat Ltd, Dhunseri Tea Industries Ltd., Sri Ram Industrial Enterprises et .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed the decision of the ITAT, in the same fact situation, - in fact in the same common order, the revenue cannot legitimately agitate a position contrary to the one it accepted in Nalwa - especially because Nalwa Investments is one of the share-holder companies of JISCO, which had sought and was allotted NCDs at ₹ 111/- per NCD and later transferred the allotments to UTI, which paid the balance amount. Its initial claim for capital loss was changed to business loss, and finally accepted by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the share inventory, it could not be said that the NCDs and the resultant DWs were to be treated otherwise. Here, the court is conscious that the assessees did claim initially to have incurred capital loss; however, they later corrected their stand and claimed business loss. We are of the opinion that the earlier stand of the assessees could not have shackled them to that position, preventing them from asserting the true character of the amount. Nor is the revenue bound to treat the position of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y Vohra, Sr. Advocate with For the Petitioner : Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. ORDER S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (Open Court) 1. These three appeals involve common questions of law directed against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 05.06.2000. Initially, a Division Bench had decided the case on, 08.10.2001, reported in (2002) 254 ITR 0538 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhinandan Investments); it had ruled in favour of the assessee, holding that no substantial question of law arose .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6/2001 (hereafter JELCS ) claimed a loss of ₹ 111 per debenture on the sale of debentures of Jindal Iron and Steel Co ( JISCO ) to UTI. These assessees were shareholders of JISCO, which declared a right issue of secured redeemable non-convertible debentures (NCD) of ₹ 500/- each. The size of the issue was about ₹ 500 crores. The issue opened on 21.11.94 and closed on 19.12.94. Interest @10.5% was payable by JISCO on those debentures. To make the debenture issue attractive, JISC .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ibute a sum of ₹ 500/- each debenture on application. d) If the company did not receive the minimum subscription of about 90% of the issue of NCD within sixty days from the closure of the issue the company had to refund the entire subscription amount received. e) NCD with DW was offered to existing shareholders of the company whose names appeared in the register of a company on 31.10.94. f) 23 debentures for every 100 equity shares held on 31.10.94 were to be issued. 3. The shareholding pa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ees of NCDs could surrender all the NCDs to UTI after the application was made and UTI agreed to pay the balance allotment money (Rs.389/- per NCD) to JISCO and secure the NCD registered in its name. The assessees and other promoter companies applied for NCDs as per their shareholding and made the payment of ₹ 111/- each NCD on application. However, all the said promoter companies (including the assessees) opted for the arrangement entered into between JISCO and the UTI - mentioned earlier .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 111 each NCD and, was deductible. 5. The AO considered the assessees claim and observed that JISCO had given loans to some Mumbai based group companies and in turn these group companies invested in the placement of preference shares of all the said assesses/appellant companies. The AO therefore felt that it was JISCO s own fund which was used in subscribing to its NCD issue in the name of assessees. The AO also held that all the five assessees/ appellants were not acting in their own cap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

this arrangement in the letter of offer though the arrangement with UTI was already reached before the offer dated 12.11.94. The AO also noted that the five assessee companies endorsed the allotment letters issued to them, in favour of UTI, which paid the allotment money and that there was no agreement between the UTI and the assessees for making the payment of allotment money on their behalf. Rather, the arrangement was between JISCO and UTI and the assessee could not take the benefit of such .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppeal it was highlighted that the assesses were investment companies like other shareholders and that during the year all the said five companies came up with a private placement of Jindal s preference shares and also subscribed to the right issue of NCD of JISCO. The assessees also subscribed to the equity issue of Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Ltd. (JVSL), a new company of the group floated during February 1995. It was highlighted that the face value of JISCO s NCD was ₹ 500/- and each entitle .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

NCD and the allotment money was ₹ 389/- per NCD. The rights issue opened on 11.11.94. An arrangement with UTI, by JISCO was made in July, 1994 which was accepted by the former in September, 1994. In terms of the arrangement, NCD allottees could surrender the NCD to UTI which would pay the allotment money of ₹ 389/- per debenture to JISCO on behalf of subscribers. UTI accordingly paid the sum @ ₹ 389/- per NCD to JISCO on behalf of assessees. In turn the assessees transferred th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5 and January 25, 1995, the assessees and others transferred the NCDs to UTI without consideration. It was also held that the assessees never became owners of the fully paid NCDs and that they had paid ₹ 111/- as application money to acquire NCD; the DWs were received gratis. The claim of loss of ₹ 111/- per debenture on its sale was made for the first time in appeal and not in assessment proceedings. It was noted that the assessees applied for NCDs after the arrangement between JISC .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at ₹ 111/- per NCDs. The beneficiary of the transfer was not UTI but JISCO. Thus, the loss was deliberately incurred for the benefit of JISCO. It was held that as such, no loss arose to the assessees on transfer of the NCDs and, therefore, the question of allowing loss did not arise. The CIT (A) consequently dismissed the assessee s appeal. 8. The assessees and other companies appealed to the ITAT and argued that together, they held 30.93% (and about 40.43% being held by general public) sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of NCDs. Had they not so subscribed - to the public issue of NCDs, JISCO s entire issue would have failed. As a promoter company this could have brought bad repute to the assessees. It was further urged that the most important aspect was that there was no underwriter to the issue. Thus, the assessees were compelled to subscribe to the issue of NCDs. Since 90% of the issue had to be subscribed by the existing shareholders, this was not an easy task. In order to make the issue attractive, a DW was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

paid at ₹ 389/- per NCD to JISCO on behalf of the assessees, was not considered. In a sense, their stand was that only when the entire consideration for the NCDs was received by JISCO further course of action was followed. The materials were placed to show that DWs were given to the assessees when NCDs were fully paid up. As to the conclusion of the CIT (A) that the assessees never became the owner of NCD/DWs, it was submitted that the letter of allotment was in the name of the assessees; .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ach debenture. Moreover UTI was entitled to the full redemption money at ₹ 500/- per debenture on redemption though actually they had paid at ₹ 389/-. UTI earned a substantial annual gain of 256% on this transaction. It was urged that the assessees too benefited due to the arrangement because after losing ₹ 111/- on each debenture it became entitled to one dividend warrant which enabled it (the assessee) to own an equity share at ₹ 200/- though the market price of the sha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

year in question, JISCO came up with the rights issue worth ₹ 500 crores. According to the terms of the issue - as approved by the SEBI - if 90% of the issue was not subscribed then it would fail and JISCO then was to refund the entire money collected by it. The assessees were therefore, compelled to subscribe to the rights issue. The failure of such issue would have been detrimental to the assessees and other companies, as they were investors/promoter companies of JISCO. Thus, the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

As these conditions attached to the issue had SEBI approval, all the assessees applied for the rights issue and paid a sum of ₹ 111/- per NCD on application. JISCO was also interested that the rights issue should meet with success. They therefore negotiated with UTI and UTI was agreeable to making payment of allotment money on behalf of any subscriber on the sale of NCDs to UTI. But the price quoted by UTI after negotiation was ₹ 389/- per NCD and that too was limited to investment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng the course of assessment proceedings the assessees claimed that as they sold NCDs worth ₹ 500/- per NCD at ₹ 389/- per NCD, they had suffered a loss @ ₹ 111/- per NCD which should be allowed as deduction. The claim was, inter alia, rejected on the preliminary ground that such a ground was not before the AO. The ITAT noted that in a large number of decisions it was held that any view the assessees propound may be irrelevant while considering assessment under the Act. The only .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

osition that cannot be a reason for not allowing the claim. 11. The ITAT considered the reasoning of the AO and CIT (A) and held, firstly that when the assessees applied for NCDs and paid the requisite sum of ₹ 111/- per NCD, the offer of allotment was issued to them in terms of which all applicant companies had to make a further payment at ₹ 389/- per NCD. As the arrangement was in place with the UTI (which had to purchase the NCDs at ₹ 389/- per NCD), the assessees gave effec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

had clearly confirmed that the DWs were given to the assessees only when it had received the full amount of NCDs either from the assessees, or from UTI - on its behalf. Thirdly, dealing with the reasoning that the entire transaction was aimed at giving an undue advantage to JISCO, reference was made to a chart filed by the assessees, which indicated the extent to which the UTI had benefited from the transaction. Fourthly, with respect to the deployment of funds, it was held that actually the pay .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ir face value was ₹ 500/-, the ITAT held the ground to of no substance. Here, it was noted that as per the scheme approved by the SEBI, the assessees had no option but to subscribe to the rights issue - a factor applicable to all the shareholders. The general public accounted for about 40% of the shareholding of JISCO. In case the assessees did not opt to subscribe to the issue, it would have failed, (as provided in the terms of the issue, which mandated subscription of 90% of the rights i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Dhunseri Tea Industries Ltd., and Sri Ram Industrial Enterprises, etc., had come out with similar rights issues with almost identical terms and conditions. In the case of Apollo Tyres, the buy-back was done by JM Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Ltd. whereas in the case of Usha Ispat, Dhunseri Tea and Sri Ram Industrial Enterprises, the buy-back was by UTI, DSP Financial Consultancies Ltd. and Sri Ram Financial Services Ltd. respectively. In the case of the assessees, the buy-back .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

said issue of Max India Ltd. were that 8,23,720, Zero coupon Fully Convertible Debentures (FCDs) of ₹ 500/- each were offered, for cash at par aggregating to ₹ 41,18,60,000/- on rights basis in the ratio of 1 FCD for every 10 Equity Shares held, to the existing Equity Shareholders. 12.5%, Secured, Non-convertible debentures (NCDs) aggregating 16,47,440, were issued, at ₹ 250/- each, for cash at par aggregating to ₹ 41,18,60,000/- along the Detachable Warrants (DWs) on ri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated as under: i) Non-Convertible Debenture ₹ 250/- ii) Warrant NIL 13. On the above basis, loss on sale of debentures was computed at Rs.l,57,95,000/- (i.e. ₹ 250/- minus ₹ 169/-) x 1,95,000, and warrants were shown in the Balance sheet at NIL cost. The A.O. examined this issue and concluded that by opting for scheme B there was no acquisition of NCD by the assessee at all. The A.O. also observed that:- Whatever may be the arrangements which the transaction has been gone throu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is no transaction which resulted in a loss of ₹ 81/- per warrant for the cost of the warrant has to be taken at ₹ 81/-For these reasons, the assessee s contentions were rejected. 14. The assessee appealed to the CIT (A) where it was contended that in terms of Max India Ltd s letter of offer dated December 8, 1995, each NCD carried a face value of ₹ 250 and was attached with one detachable warrant. Each warrant enabled the holder to apply for and be allotted one equity share of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing their option for allotment of equity shares were not entitled to seek any appropriation of the amount paid on the NCDs against the amount payable for the equity shares which was to be paid in full separately. It was contended that the said warrants thus were completely detachable from the NCDs and their holders were entitled to sell the NCDs separately after detaching the warrants. It was also contended that since the purchase price, face value as well as redemption price of the said NCDs wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ectly observed that the entire arrangement was pre-conceived. I find that the Assessing Officer has discussed this issue in a comprehensive manner and has correctly arrived at the finding that the cost of the warrant is to be taken at ₹ 81 only and not nil. I am in agreement with the arguments given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Accordingly, this ground is decided against the appellant-company. The disallowance of loss on sale of debentures of ₹ 1,57,95,000 is uph .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t of loss on sale of debentures." The ITAT preferred to follow the decision in Abhinandan s case and allowed the assessee s claim. Contentions of the revenue 15. It is argued by revenue that there was no sale of NCDs by the assessee to UTI as there was no agreement of sale between them. The arrangement was between JISCO and UTI. There was no stipulation in the scheme for buy back of khokha (NCDs) as was made by the other companies while issuing the prospectus for their rights issues on whic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

titled the holder/allottees to receive the DW. If the sale had taken place, only UTI would have been entitled for the DW. Here the DWs were issued to the assessee whereas the UTI had paid the allotment money. The assessee had shown the amount of application money as the cost of DWs which was evident from the fact that the assessee claimed the loss to the extent of DWs sold. It was in fact a financial arrangement between JISCO and the UTI and the UTI agreed to pay ₹ 389/- per debenture on t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

estment company of the Jindal group. 16. It was argued that no definition of investment company existed in the statute. However, several definitions were enacted. Financial investment company was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991. By Section 2(9)(d) it is defined as a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads Income from house property‟, Capital gains‟ and Income from other sources‟ or of income by way of interest on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xclusion of others. JISCO intended to avail of the whole of this benefit for itself and that is why it did not mention with reference to khokha sale in the scheme itself as was done by other companies. 17. Senior counsel for the assessee in all the cases argued that there is no infirmity in the approach and conclusions of the ITAT. It was submitted that the revenue s arguments about the assessee not being allottee of the NCDs is baseless, because as a matter of record, they were allotted in its .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t. Counsel urged that the assessee is an investment company and treated as a promoter of JISCO, whose shares to a substantial extent were acquired from time to time. Abhinandan s ordinary line of business is investment in shares. Reliance is placed on three years income for previous years in support of this argument. Urging that it would be anomalous to uphold the revenue s stand that on the one hand, it urges that JISCO s shares were held as stock in trade and at the same time, contend that DWs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s which were acquired by virtue of the shareholding in JISCO and which were held for 10 days are to be treated as an investment and held on capital account. Analysis & Findings 19. Before we proceed to analyse the contentions of the parties, it would be useful to set out, in a tabular form, the salient facts relating to the two sets of appeals:- Sl. No. Abhinandan Investment & JELCS Medicare Investment Ltd 1 Right issue of JISCO: 10.5% redeemable NCDs with DW Right issue of Max India: 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent money ₹ 389/- per NCD Rs.81/- per NCD application money for the rights issue and allotment money ₹ 169/- per NCD 5 JISCO made arrangements with UTI Max India made arrangements with Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd (IL & FS) 6 Allottee could surrender NCDs to UTI which would pay balance ₹ 389/- (to JISCO) and at the same time allottee would retain DW Allottee could surrender NCDs to IL & FS which would pay balance ₹ 169/- (to Max India) and a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

term capital loss on NCD sale to UTI. Assessee company claimed ₹ 81 as cost of NCD and capital loss as short term capital loss, on sale of NCDs to IL & FS. 20. The revenue's rationale for disallowing the loss claimed by the assessee is to be seen from the perspective that it was never its position that the cost of acquisition of NCD in the hands of the assessee was only ₹ 389 and the remaining amount of ₹ 111 was attributable to the DW cost. What entails scrutiny is whe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was to be treated as the price paid by it to acquire DWs: in fact, the assessee had contended as much when claiming loss on sale of DW @ ₹ 20/- each. The plea was rejected. 21. There is no doubt that the assessee claimed before ITAT that it incurred a loss of ₹ 111/- per debenture. Having spelt out its position that the entire amount of ₹ 500 paid by the assessee was on account of cost of acquisition of NCDS, the revenue never stated that ₹ 111/- paid by the assessee sho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ses on which the assessee's claim regarding loss of ₹ 111/- on sale of debenture was disallowed by the AO as well as by the learned CIT (A). Thereafter, the ITAT considered the terms of the right issue and held that the true legal effect of the relevant transaction has to be seen for the purpose of income-tax assessment and not the entries made in the books of account or claim made in the return of income. ITAT therefore, accepted the claim of the assessee for loss of ₹ 111 per d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

acts are that the assessees (Abhinandan and JELCS) were promoters of JISCO. Together with other three assessee companies, these assessees held over 30.93% shares in JISCO. When the NCD offer was made, a necessary condition (stipulated by SEBI) was its mandatory subscription to the extent of 90%. Being a NCD rights offer, no doubt, existing share-holders had the option of choosing not to invest in the issue. However, there was an inherent risk, especially for promoters/shareholders such as the as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the balance ₹ 389/- per NCD was payable. In this case, as a result of the terms agreed with UTI, the transfer of the NCD allotment to it meant that the balance ₹ 389 was payable. Concurrently, the rights to DW remained with the assessee companies. This court notices that fundamentally, the AO fell into error in overlooking that in fact, the NCDs were allotted on January 14, 1995 on payment of application money of ₹ 111 for NCDs. Between January 20, 1995 and January 25, 1995, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

revenue. What was not considered was that the UTI scheme was apparently wide in nature; it sought to fund NCD applicants - the assessee shareholders and other companies being some of them, to the extent of 30.93 %, as much as 40% shares being held by the general public and the rest being institutional shareholders. Significantly, UTI limited the funding under the scheme to ₹ 350 crores. Equally, what was lost sight of was that both the UTI and the applicants stood to benefit, because (a) U .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t of ₹ 165,526,458/50 of which the value of JISCO s shares was ₹ 43,143,836/00. They held shares in 12 other listed companies besides shares in unlisted companies, debentures and other securities. Their dividend income was in excess of ₹ 75 lakhs. Other income, by way of interest, on loans, securities, etc was in excess of ₹ 1.05 crores. 24. Now, it is essential to deal with the findings of the AO that the loans advanced by ₹ 89,76,69,968/- to JISCO to one Sun Inves .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t of a total inventory of ₹ 5.50 crores) which had no connection with JISCO. It reported a total income of ₹ 2.23 crores, of which ₹ 81 lakhs was by dividends and ₹ 97.23 lakhs was from sale of investments. These figures establish that JELCS, like Abhinandan, had independent substantial sources of income and was not a conduit or alter ego of JISCO. 25. Here allotment of the NCDs with detachable warrants was made by JISCO in terms of clear and transparent offer under the S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ded a return of 10.5 % annually. The purpose of issue was commercial and they were not issued by the JISCO only to attract subscriptions to the DWs attached thereto. Depending on share market volatility, the apparent sweetener (to the issue), i.e., the free DWs could become worthless; after all, the DWs entitled the holders to equity shares in the event of an issue, at a pre-determined price of ₹ 200/-. 26. A distinction made by the revenue between the case of Abhinandan and JELCS on the o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, which is called Khoka sale, amount payable on application was only ₹ 81/- per NCD whereas the subscriber not exercising the option of Khoka sale as given in option (b), the entire face value of ₹ 250/- was payable on application. The contention was that the subscriber opting for option (a) thus, was paying ₹ 81/- per NCD on application as a consideration for detachable warrant and this was explicitly the true effect of the transaction. This court notices that the distinction .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ll as that of Abhinandan Investments Ltd. and Ors. (supra), options were given to the allottees/subscribers to surrender or sell the NCDs at a discounted price to the finance company as per the arrangement made by the issuing company and the difference was only in the stage at which such option was to be exercised. For example, in the case of Abhinandan Investments Ltd. and Ors. (supra), such option was to be exercised only after allotment of the concerned NCDs, whereas in the case of the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eive that much amount from the finance company. In the case of subscriber going for option (b), there was however, no such amount and since the entire amount was to be paid along with the application as per the terms of payment given in the offer document, he was required to pay a sum of ₹ 250 per NCD on application itself. In the cases of Abhinandan Investments Ltd. and Ors. (supra), the terms of payment given in the offer document, however, were different inasmuch as a sum of ₹ 111 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aid along with the application itself, whereas in the other cases, the amount payable against NCDs was to be paid in two instalments, one at application stage and the remaining on allotment. 32. There were thus two distinctive features in the scheme of allotment as per the offer made in the case of the present assessee and in the case of Abhinandan Investments Ltd. and Ors. (supra). Firstly, there was a difference in the stage at which the option of Khoka sale was to be exercised and secondly, t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

djusted/paid against the remaining amount payable towards NCDs. In our opinion, the effect of these transactions thus ultimately was the one and the same and the distinctive features of allotment of NCDs in these cases as pointed out on behalf of the Revenue would not change the very nature of the transaction which, in our opinion, was exactly similar. This court holds that the above reasoning is sound and logical. The revenue could not show any fallacy; nor is it possible to agree with its cont .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e consequential appeal effect given by the AO became the subject matter of further appeal which was eventually decided by this court. That is now a reported decision - Commissioner of Income Tax v Nalwa Investments 322 ITR 233- by a Division Bench of this Court. The court first narrated the facts as follows:- 5. In 1994, JISCO which was desirous of making a rights issue of secured redeemable non-convertible debentures (hereinafter referred to as "SRNCD") approached the Securities and E .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the said course and made an issue of ₹ 500 crores of SRNCDs of a face value of ₹ 500 each. The essential features of the rights issue of SRNCDs as approved by the SEBI and as indicated in the order of the authorities below were as follows : (a) each debenture will be of the face value of ₹ 500 each ; (b) every residential shareholder will pay a sum of ₹ 111 per debenture on making an application and the balance sum of ₹ 389 per SRNCD was payable on allotment ; (c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

31, 1994, were required to be issued. 6. It is important to note that at the relevant point in time, in JISCO the public held nearly 40.43 per cent. of the shares, while the financial institutions, mutual funds and banks together held nearly 18.80 per cent. This was excluding the shares held by foreign institutional investors and nonresidents of the Indian origin. 7. Continuing with the aforesaid narration, the rights issue of SRNCDs opened on November 21, 1994, with December 19, 1994, as the da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o pay the balance sum of ₹ 389 per SRNCD on behalf of the allottees to JISCO. The assessee being an existing stakeholder applied for the rights issue made by JISCO. In accordance with the conditions of the issue, the assessee paid an application money of ₹ 111 per debenture. As arranged the UTI paid the balance sum of ₹ 389 to JISCO whereupon JISCO issued a DW in favour of the assessee as well as the other investors including Abhinandan Investment Ltd. (i.e., the appellant in I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

led a return for the assessment year 1995-96. The said return was filed on November 29, 1995. In the said return the assessee had initially claimed a short-term capital loss of ₹ 91 per DW on the ground that it had sold each DW at the rate of ₹ 20. This return was admittedly filed within time as prescribed under section 139 of the Act and in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 139. In the return a loss had been claimed even though the loss claimed, as indicated above initially .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s. The Assessing Officer disallowed the loss on the ground that it was not genuine. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the appellant as well as the other investment companies were merely money-lenders and the arrangement so configured to give benefit to JISCO and UTI. Thereafter the court noticed the order of the ITAT (which is the subject matter of these appeals, i.e., ITA Nos.25-26/2001) and the background in which the AO disallowed the claim for carry forward of losses, impelling the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cer dated October 27, 2000, is captioned as one having been passed under section 254 of the Act. 15. Aggrieved by the observation of the Assessing Officer that the said assessed loss could not be carried forward and set off against its future income the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by an order dated February 22, 2002, rejected the appeal both on the ground that it was not maintainable as well as on the merits. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

paragraph 32 of the order dated June 5, 2000, passed by the Tribunal merely required the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of loss as a business loss at the rate of ₹ 111 per SRNCD and since the Tribunal had not directed that loss which had been determined was required to be carried forward, the Assessing Officer had not exceeded his jurisdiction in not permitting the carry forward of the loss as the same could have been carried forward only in accordance with law. The Commissioner of I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Assessing Officer in disallowing the carry forward and set off of loss against the future income of the assessee. The Court thereafter held that the AO s approach was untenable: 17. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue as well as the assessee we are of the view that the answers to the questions framed have to be found in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the reasons given hereinafter. It is clear upon a perusal of the facts and circumstances quoted by us hereinabo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re in JISCO, was clearly part and parcel of the terms and conditions of the issue. The arrangement between a public financial institution-UTI and JISCO for part financing the investment had been examined by the Tribunal in the first round. The Tribunal after noting the benefit which had accrued both to the assessee and UTI, that is, while the assessee had acquired an equity share on the other hand UTI had acquired not only a SRNCD of a face value of ₹ 500 at the rate of ₹ 389 but als .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng effect to the order of the Tribunal dated June 5, 2000, verified the loss of SRNCD. Upon verification of the loss the Assessing Officer adjusted the loss on the sale of 11,98,000 SRNCD at the rate of ₹ 111 per SRNCD amounting to ₹ 13,29,78,000 against an income of ₹ 7,01,96,195 and arrived at a loss of ₹ 6,27,81,805 under section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, observed that the assessee was not entitled to carry forward the said assessed loss of  .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are of the view that the Tribunal correctly appreciated the provisions of section 80 of the Act read with section 139(3) of the Act and allowed the carry forward of loss for the purposes of set off against the income of the subsequent year(s). A plain reading of the provision of section 80 of the Act permits an assessee to carry forward a loss and seek its set off under section 72(1) or 73(2) or sub-section (1) of section 74 or 74A(3) except when the loss has not been determined in pursuance of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

section 74A." 19. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the assessee had filed a return under section 139 of the Act within the prescribed time. It is also not disputed that a loss had been claimed even though the same had been claimed to the extent of ₹ 90 and that too as a capital loss with respect to DWs issued to the assessee, on the assessee investing in the rights issue of JISCO. The assessee carried out a course correction by claiming a loss on sale of SRNCDs to UTI at & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s of account or the method of accounting that an assessee uses are not relevant in considering the effect to be given to the transactions which are governed by the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal went on to observe while allowing the claim of loss by the assessee that the fact that in the return filed by the assessee wherein the assessee does not take a proper position, cannot be a ground to take advantage of the ignorance of the assessee if the assessee is otherwise entitled to relief and/o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

filed by the assessee under section 139 of the Act. In the return the assessee had claimed erroneously a loss to a lesser extent, that is, at ₹ 91 against DWs as against SRNCDs which was corrected pursuant to a stand taken before conclusion of proceedings by the Assessing Officer in the first round and a stand which was sustained by the Tribunal by its order dated June 5, 2000. In view of the said circumstances obtaining in the present case the Tribunal in the second round, vide the impugn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al, vide its order dated June 5, 2000, had allowed the assessee's claim of loss on sale of SRNCDs at the rate of ₹ 111 per SRNCD as a business loss based on the reasoning that the assessments had to be carried out keeping in mind the real effect of a legal transaction notwithstanding the treatment meted out by the assessee, it would then appear anomalous and incongruous if the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the said order would denude the efficacy of the Tribunal's order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Nalwa Investments is one of the share-holder companies of JISCO, which had sought and was allotted NCDs at ₹ 111/- per NCD and later transferred the allotments to UTI, which paid the balance amount. Its initial claim for capital loss was changed to business loss, and finally accepted by the ITAT. 29. Another good reason for this Court to reject the revenue s contention is that in all the cases (Abhinandan, JELCS and Medicare) the assessees are investment companies, whose business includes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oss; however, they later corrected their stand and claimed business loss. We are of the opinion that the earlier stand of the assessees could not have shackled them to that position, preventing them from asserting the true character of the amount. Nor is the revenue bound to treat the position of the assessee as the gospel truth, or pin it to one or the other stand. The revenue is obliged to independently assess the amounts having regard to the provision of the Act. In Kedarnath Jute Manufacturi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

free tradable detachable warrants that entitle holders to shares. These Bench decisions are: (i) Lazer Syntex Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (ITA No. 781/Ahd/1996, dt. 18th Sept., 1997 Mumbai 'B' Bench); (ii) Karamchand Thaper & Bros. vs. Dy. CIT (ITA No. 2649/Cal/1996, of Calcutta 'E' Bench, dt. 12th June, 1997); (iii) Dy. CIT vs. Jogiya Traders Ltd. (ITA No. 2992/Mum/1998, Mumbai 'B' Bench, dt. 30th May, 2003); (iv) Dy. CIT vs. Kanakadnara Traders (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 2993/Mum/1998, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er: The Tribunal failed to appreciate that at no stage was the issue of quantification ever in dispute between the parties. The Assessing Officer had categorically recorded that for the reasons stated in his order the claim of loss "is not acceptable and the same is ignored in the computation of income". If the Assessing Officer had not undertaken quantification of the loss, the Commissioner (Appeals) had not undertaken such an exercise, there was no ground raised by the revenue before .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e of any exercise of quantification by the Assessing Officer there was no occasion for the assessee to carry the matter any further and therefore the said issue could not arise out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Once that was the position the Tribunal could not have taken it upon itself to raise the issue and decide the same which did not properly arise out of the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) as no ground could be taken by either side in absence of any findings by the Commissioner (A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

Highlight: Safeguard Duty - Advance License Scheme - as there is no exemption from safeguard duty leviable under Section 8C, which is imposed on the goods imported from China, the importer has to pay safeguard duty

Forum: Rent a cab operator

Highlight: Manufacture - process of cutting of waste plastic container - Such plastic containers before and after cutting are nothing but waste / scrap - Not a manufacturing activity as no new product emerges.

News: NITI Aayog and Govt. of Assam organizes workshop on health sector reforms in Guwahati; launches SATH- Sustainable Action for Transforming Human Capital

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 5/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding restriction of refund on corduroy fabrics

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst exemptions

Forum: GSTR 3B Rectification

Notification: seeks to exempt Skimmed milk powder, or concentrated milk

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to GST council decisions regarding GST exemptions.

Forum: 3B mistake

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates.

Forum: GST - TRAN1 - filed - Data uploaded with Remarks Processed with Error - Not coming in Electronic credit ledger - need suggession guidance

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

Highlight: Classification printed computer stationary/manifold Business Forms - to be classified under Chapter Heading 4820.00 or under Chapter Heading 4901.90 - items like A4 sheets, advertisement and job card to be classified under Chapter 49

Forum: GST Invoice

Notification: Amendments in the notification No.5/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017.

Article: Websites of Government Departments need lot of improvement. We are noticing detoriations in them for example, case of website of ITAT.

Article: RCM – Applicability to persons not liable to get registered us 23(1)

Article: Credit of unsold stock [Section 140(3)] - Actual Credit as well as Notional Credit - Part-I - GST Transitional provisions

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Forum: Duty Drawback- Urgent

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities – Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under CGST Act

Highlight: Acceptance of deposits by companies from its members - conditions relaxed in case of Specified IFSC Public company and a private company - Rule 3 amended

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 8th September, 2017

News: Tax Payers Advised To Confirm Identities Of Income Tax Search Authorities

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Circular: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg.

News: GST implementation smoother than expected: Jaitley

Forum: Due date of Filing TRAN-1

Highlight: Diversion of income at source - Joint venture agreement - 97% of the receipt transfer to M/s TRG Industries (P) Ltd. - scope of the agreement - it is diversion by overriding title - not taxable in the hands of assessee - HC

Highlight: Expenditure on eligible projects or schemes u/s 35AC - After 01.04.2017 the legislature desired to withdraw such deduction. - The Union legislature was competent to introduce such amendment - HC

Highlight: Transfer of trading assets at cost price, the profit component also stood transferred to the outgoing Directors, which otherwise belonged to the Company - the fact that AO has made the addition in the hands of the Directors would not make any difference - additions confirmed - HC

Highlight: The interest u/s 234B of the Act cannot go beyond the stage of S.245D(I) before the Settlement Commission - HC

Highlight: Galvanized iron pipe is a different commercial commodity than a iron pipe, therefore the activity of galvanization in our considered opinion amounts to manufacture - Deduction u/s 80-IB allowed - HC

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271C - non deduction of TDS on interest paid to sister concerns in terms of Section 194A - Levy of penalty confirmed - HC



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version