TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down in the case of Kabul Chawla [ 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Meeta Gutgutia[ 2017 (5) TMI 1224 - DELHI HIGH COURT] squarely apply. Coming to the facts of Assessment Year 2009-10, we find that the assessee has returned short term capital loss on forfeiture of convertible share warrants which was accepted as such by order dated 10.09.2010 framed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. However, in the order framed u/s. 153C of the Act, the same was disallowed. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that there is no nexus between the addition made in the assessment order and in the incriminating material found at the time of search - we do not find any merit in the addition made in Assessment Year 2009-10. - Decided in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces were issued and served upon the assessee. 6. Assessment of Assessment Year 2008-09 was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013 wherein the short term capital gain of ₹ 1,57,78,318/- was assessed as business income. 7. A perusal of the assessment order shows that there is no reference to any incriminating material found during the course of search. In fact, the original assessment was framed vide order dated 13.12.2010 wherein short term capital gain was accepted as such. Therefore, in our considered opinion, in the assessment order framed u/s. 153C of the Act, there has to be direct nexus between incriminating material found during the course of search qua the addition, devoid of which, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 63. We agree with the interpretation given by the Karnataka High Court in BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. (supra) and we see no reason to take a different view. The restrictive meaning given to the word transfer by the Supreme Court decision in Vania Silk Mills P. Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 647 has been over ruled by the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Grace Collis (2001) 248 ITR 323. In the present case, we find that the forfeiture of the convertible warrant has resulted in extinguishment of the right of the assessee to obtain a share in BLB Ltd. It is not a case where the asset itself has been extinguished or destroyed. A share in a company is nothing but a share in the ownership of the company. While the right of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
