9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause of treatment given to the gain derived by the assessee from sale of compulsory convertible preference shares (CCPS) as short term capital gain. Explaining further, he submitted, the assessee is a non-resident individual. He submitted, the assessee was employed with SB Group US, Inc. from October, 2014. He submitted, as a part of employment compensation, the assessee was assigned fully vested CCPS in two Indian companies, i.e., Jasper Infotech (P) Ltd. (Snapdeal) valued at USD 25,005,379 and ANI Technologies (P) Ltd. (Ola) valued at USD 15,004,297 respectively as on 29th December, 2014. He submitted, on 01.02.2017, the assessee entered into a termination agreement with its employer and sold the CCPS to group entities of SB Group US in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares exceeding a period of 24 months. He submitted, for all practical purposes, the ownership over the CCPS vested with the assessee on the date of assignment. He submitted, merely because the CCPS were transferred in the name of the assessee subsequently, the date of transfer of CCPS cannot be reckoned from that date. Thus, he submitted, the addition leading to the present demand is unsustainable. 3. Without prejudice, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, out of the total disputed demand of Rs.305,42,23,267/-, interest charged u/s. 234B works out to Rs.57,07,08,540/-. He submitted, since the assessee is a non-resident and tax has been withheld at source, interest u/s. 234B cannot be charged. In support of such contention, he rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m capital gain. Hence, the present demand. It is observed, as per the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year, the assessee has claimed a refund of Rs.102,14,67,220/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has rejected assessee's claim of long term capital gain and treated the gain derived as short term capital gain. Further, he has not allowed any deduction u/s. 48(ii) of the Act towards cost of acquisition of the capital asset. Aforesaid action of the Assessing Officer has not only wiped out the refund claimed of Rs.102,14,67,220/- but has created the disputed tax demand of Rs.305,42,23,267/- including interest charged u/s. 234B of the Act, being an amount of Rs.57,07,08,540/-. Keeping in view the ratio la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
