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-16, Mumbai Versus Sadanand B. Sule

2016 (8) TMI 766 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Long Term Capital Gain - what is the cost of acquisition of 1665 shares in Yashomal Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd. (now merged in Lavasa Corporation Ltd.) which have been admittedly sold by the respondent – assessee along with other preference shares during the subject assessment year for the purpose of computing the capital gains - Held that:- The fact that Mr. and Mrs.Bhale, the vendors of 1665 shares to the respondent – assessee had not disclosed the receipt of consideration of sale in their re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ter given by vendors of 1665 shares. Further fact that the respondent – assessee had paid the consideration for the sale of 1665 shares by account payee cheques is also significant. It is also pertinent to note that before the Tribunal the grievance of the revenue is that the CIT (A) has accepted explanation of the respondent – assessee. It has been correctly observed by the Tribunal that the explanation given by any party has to be taken into consideration and if the same is found to be accepta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ribunal are perverse. The view taken by both authorities on the basis of evidence and explanation made available before them was a possible and reasonable view. - In the above view the question as posed for our consideration does not give rise to any substantial question of law. - Income Tax Appeal No. 300 of 2014 - Dated:- 2-8-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And A. K. Menon , JJ. Mr. A.R. Malhotra with Mr.N.A. Kazi for the appellant Mr. J.D. Mistri, Senior Advocate with Mr.Niraj Sheth i/b Mr. Atul J .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oring the fact that the cost of Acquisition of Shares was not proved by the assessee for claim for total purchase of 1665 shares of M/s.Lavassa Corporation Limited before claiming Long Term Capital Gain ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of assessee regarding the sale of shares of M/s.Lavassa Corporation Ltd. without appreciating the fact that Share Transfer Register did not r .....

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 1665 shares in Lavasa Corporation Ltd. and had sold the shares along with other shares in the company during the previous year relevant to the subject assessment year. However, during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer by order dated 31st December, 2007 held that the respondent - assessee had failed to establish the purchase of 1665 shares in 2001. In particular he noted that the consideration claimed to have been paid by the respondent - assessee to the vendors of the 1665 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

g aggrieved the respondent - assessee carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By the order dated 17th October, 2008, the CIT(A) allowed the respondent-assessee's appeal on consideration of facts in detail. It held that the basis of the Assessing Officer not accepting the cost and the date of purchase of 1665 equity shares from Mr. and Mrs. Bhale was not acceptable in view of explanation offered by the respondent - assessee. In the explanation, the re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Bhale to show the receipts on sale of shares in its return of income for paying tax on the same. It noted the fact that all payments made for the purchase of shares from Mr. and Mrs.Bhale were made through account payee cheques. Further there were confirmation letters filed by the vendors Mr. and Mrs.Bhale which were not even considered by the Assessing Officer. The impugned order also found that the order of the CIT(A) accepting the explanation of the respondent-assessee for the discrepancies 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

f of the Revenue in particular Mr. and Mrs.Bhale not having disclosed the sale of shares and offering capital gains tax on the same on their return of income. In the above view it is submitted that the respondent - assessee has not been able to clearly establish that they had in fact purchased the shares in the assessment year 2002-03. 7. We find that the respondent - assessee has originally in its computation of capital gains indicated the amount of ₹ 1.38 crores as consideration paid to .....

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
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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