TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, she has not concluded this issue. The assessee received shares through the gift from her husband as detailed in the assessment order; thus, the income derived from transfer of such shares has to be assessed in view of the provisions of section 64(1)(iv) and not 68, which the Ld. CIT(A) has done. Thus, there in the assessee’s case, the issues relating to the working of LTCG and deduction u/s. 54F loses relevance, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) refrained himself in deciding these issues. Accordingly, the addition u/s. 68 in the hands of the assessee was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 3513/Del/2014 And CROSS OBJECTION NO. 234/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 4-6-2018 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) while deleting the addition u/s. 68 of the Act has exceeded in his jurisdiction to hold that income derived from transfer of such shares has to be assessed in view of the provisions of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act. It is therefore, prayed that it be held that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) has to be confined to deleting the addition u/s. 68 of the Act and further findings about assessability of the aforesaid sum are without jurisdiction. Revenue s Appeal 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed her return of income declaring income of ₹ 1,21,741/-. The case of the assessee was picked up under scrutiny. The assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on the sale of 2950 shares of M/s Anil Steel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nil Steels Pvt. Ltd. as a colourable device to launder her black money in the garb of LTCG and thus she taxed the entire sale consideration of ₹ 99,20,000/- of share transfer of M/s Anil Steels Pvt. Ltd. uls 68 and completed the assessment at ₹ 1,00,41,740/- u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 27.12.2010. Against the assessment order dated 27.12.2010, assessee appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 11.3.2014 has deleted the addition in dispute and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and the Assessee has filed the Cross objection. 7. Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s gross income and thereafter deduction u/s. 54F of the Act has been claimed. Thus, we are of the considered view that taxing sale consideration once u/s. 45 and again u/s. 68 amounts to double taxation. Therefore, in view of such facts and circumstances, the addition u/s. 68 is not called for as such because it is a case where one asset gets replaced by another asset and not of cash credit. Here, the AO has not doubted the possession of shares by the assessee through the gift as stated by the assessee. The AO has raised the issue of taxability of income u/s. 64 as evident from the impugned order. However, she has not concluded this issue. Undoubtedly, the assessee received shares through the gift from her husband as detailed in the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
