TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding to the effect that the shares were allotted to the assessee under ESOP scheme in the year 2000 and thereafter bonus shares were issued and there was a split of shares which resulted in total number of shares at 2000, accordingly treated the same as long term capital assets. At no point of time, the ld. DR controverted the finding of CIT(A), by bringing any positive material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) for allowing the assessee’s claim of Long Term Capital Gains. See Muthuswamy Ravikumar V/s ACIT [2008 (3) TMI 407 - ITAT BANGALORE-A] wherein held it is the date of grant of the stock option in favour of the assessee that is material for determining the period of holding the asset in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins by observing as under: 3.2 the assessee got 250 shares as on 01.04.2000 as legal owner . Further, 250 shares became 500 shares on account of 1:1 bonus shares issued in October 2000. There was split in the year 2002 and paid up shares of ₹ 10/- was split into two shares of ₹ 5/-. In that year pursuant to split, assessee became full legal owner of 1000 shares as on 31.12.2002. Following another round of 1:1 bonus in 2003, assessee became legal owner of 2000 shares. Thus, as on 01.01.2005, assessee became full legal owner' 2000 shares. 3.3 The assessee had sold 2000 shares on 20.12.2006. The sale of 2000 shares on 20.12.2006 acquired by the assessee as on 01.01.2005 would result in la term capital gains and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.12.2006. However, ld. CIT(A) has recorded, finding to the effect that the shares were allotted to the assessee under ESOP scheme in the year 2000 and thereafter bonus shares were issued and there was a split of shares which resulted in total number of shares at 2000, accordingly treated the same as long term capital assets. At no point of time, the ld. DR controverted the finding of CIT(A), by bringing any positive material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) for allowing the assessee s claim of Long Term Capital Gains. The issue is also squarely covered by the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Abhiram Seth V/s JCIT (2013) 79 DTR 63 and the decision of Hyderabad Bench of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
