TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d transaction which was undertaken to avoid tax. But from the MOU submitted by the assessee company it can be clearly seen that it a family arrangement and internal family realignment amongst the members of the family of Late Shri O.P. Jindal and cannot be taken as gift. The chart reproduced in para 3 hereinabove from the Assessment Order clearly shows that it is not a gift but a family arrangement and these kind of family arrangement cannot be termed as gift/benefit or perquisite. AO by lifting the corporate veil, without providing any cogent reasons, and without appreciating that the beneficiary never obtained any benefit from this transaction at any time cannot comment on the said transaction as sham and bogus. Observations made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tures and surmises, and therefore ought to have been set aside by the Ld.CIT(A). 2.1. That the assessing officer erred in holding that shares of listed companies received by the appellant company as gift without consideration, as part of internal family realignment amongst members of the family, could not be regarded as valid gift , and further grossly erred in alleging the same to be sham and colorable transactions, without any cogent reasons. That the assessing officer ought to have appreciated that the gift was given in compliance with necessary statutory provisions, after obtaining necessary authorizations and after following the due process under the law. 2.2 That the assessing officer, despite making no addition in the hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e details of which are as under:- S. NO. Donor No. of Shares Name of the companies whose equity shares has been gifted 1 M/s JSW Inv. Pvt. Ltd. 17,15,793/- M/s JSW Steel Ltd. 2 -do- 14,53,32,820/- M/s JSW Energy Ltd. 3 M/s Gagan Infra engery Ltd. 1,76,94,108/- M/s Jindal Steel Power Ltd. 4 M/s Groovy Trading Pvt. Ltd. 1,22,306/- M/s Nalwa Sons Inv. Ltd. 5 -do- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant. 1.3. That the assessing officer exceeded his jurisdiction in observing that the transaction of receipt of shares, was taxable in the hands of the beneficiary under section 2(24)(iv) of the income tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 18 days in the present appeal and applications seeking condonation of delay is filed by the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR did not object to the application of condonation of delay. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The delay in filing the present appeal is explained by the assessee through affidavit filed by the Director of the assessee company. The delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtained any benefit from this transaction at any time. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessing officer erred in holding that the transaction of gift of shares held by Mrs. Arti Jindal in the assessee company to M/s PRJ Holding Private Trust was not valid and was a sham and void transaction which was undertaken to avoid tax. The Ld. AR submitted that the findings in the assessment order pertaining to taxation of alleged benefit in the hands of the alleged beneficiary under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act, besides being beyond jurisdiction, are capricious and violative of principles of natural justice and fair play. The Ld. AR further submitted that it is a family arrangement and internal family realignment amongst the members of the family of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y obligation which, but for such payment, would have been payable by the director or other person aforesaid; The words benefit and perquisite are used in this clause of sub-section (24) to Section 2. Whether gifting shares amounts any benefit or perquisite has to be looked into. In the present case at one point the Assessing Officer has stated that there is benefit to assessee company but at the same time states that the transaction of gift of shares held by Mrs. Arti Jindal in the assessee company to M/s PRJ Holding Private Trust was not valid and was a sham and void transaction which was undertaken to avoid tax. But from the MOU submitted by the assessee company it can be clearly seen that it a family arrangement and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
