9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lidity of re-opening of assessment; b. Addition of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 1.32 crores treating it as bogus in nature. 2. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee company was earlier known as Sterling Rerolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. During the year under consideration, the assessee has generated income by way of interest in inter corporate deposits, dividend on investments, profit on sale of shares/redemption of securities etc. It filed its return of income of the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs. 64.95 lakhs and it was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3. Subsequently, the AO received information that the Revenue has carried out search and seizure act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed the sum of Rs. 1.32 crores, being the amount of Long Term Capital Gain claimed as exempt by rejecting the claim of exemption. 5. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of re-opening of assessment and also the addition made by the AO. The Ld.CIT(A) did not accept the contentions of the assessee and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld.AR raised various contentions on the issue of validity of re-opening of assessment by placing reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., vs. ACIT [464 ITR 430]; the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,000 shares mentioned in (c) above, in the off-market on 12-03-20215 and it has generated Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,34,94,000/-. Since the shares were sold in off-market without paying securities transaction tax, the Long Term Capital Gain will be taxable. Accordingly, the assessee paid income tax thereon calculated @ 10% of long term capital gains. 9. The Ld.AR submitted that all the purchases and sales were duly supported by proper evidences. The shares in which the assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act has been held by the assessee for about 11 years and 08 years, since M/s. Nyssa Corporation Ltd. is a group company. Hence the AO was not correct in treating the long term capital gains declared by the assessee as &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Mr Ravindra Kumar V Ruia was a major shareholder in M/s Ravinay Trading Co Ltd (now known as M/s Nyssa Corporation Ltd) in the years 2003 to 2006. He was also a major shareholder in the assessee company in the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. Thus, we notice that the assessee had held the shares of M/s Nyssa Corporation Ltd for quiet long period, which is not the modus Operandi adopted in generation of alleged bogus long term capital gains. The Ld.AR further submitted that the purchase and sale of shares is supported by proper evidences and bank transactions. We notice that the AO has simply placed reliance on the information received from the Investigation wing for rejecting the exemption claimed by the assessee. He has not conducted any inde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
