9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) failed to appreciate that as per the provisions of section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956, the shares can be transferred by the subsequent purchaser in his name in the records of the company at any time before the book closure of the Company and that it was not necessary that immediately on receipt of shares, he has to get them transferred in his own name. (4) CIT(A) erred in disallowing Rs. 2,000 out of professional charges paid to architect and in treating it as a capital expenditure. 2. The first three grounds pertain to short-term capital loss of Rs. 1,52,075 and, thus, they are taken up together. The assessee had claimed short-term capital loss of Rs. 1,52,075 on sale of shares of Balaji Investments Ltd., which was diallowed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchaser once the title passed to the purchaser, the transaction was complete and the loss had crystallised in this very assessment year and, therefore, it should have been allowed. He further stressed that the provisions of the Company Law Act did not affect the sale where it had been provided that the transfer would be complete for the purposes of the company, when the sale had been registered in the register maintained by the company. In fact, that provision was only for the purpose of the company who was a third party. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative relied on the order of the CIT(A) in which he confirmed the order of the ITO relying on the provisions of the Companies Act. 5. We have heard the parties at length and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale had taken place within this assessment year and the loss had also crystallised in this year. As a result, the said loss was an allowable deduction and the order to the contrary, passed by the CIT(A), is set aside and the ITO is directed to allow the said short-term capital loss, according to the law. The issues are accordingly decided in favour of the assessee. 6. The other ground pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 2,000 out of professional charges paid to an architect treating the same as capital expenditure. The learned counsel pointed out that this payment to the architect was in connection with any bigger estimate, but it was only for a routine repairs of the premises. As it was payment made to an architect for preparing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
