INDUSFACE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1990/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 February 2019AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the nature of the transaction, which resulted in the impugned income, required further consideration. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order which taxed long-term capital gains at the short-term capital gains rate, applying Section 50 instead of Section 112 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also contested the charging of interest under Section 234B.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether Section 50 or Section 112 of the Income Tax Act was applicable for taxing long-term capital gains. Another issue was the applicability of interest under Section 234B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50,Section 112,Section 143(3),Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Pramod Kumar, VP:

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 27th June 2017, passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Grievances raised by the appellant are as follows : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara [“the CIT(A)”] erred in fact and in law in charging to tax gains arising on transfer of long term capital asset at the rate applicable to short-term capital gain. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in holding that section 50 instead of section 112 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is applicable for determining the rate at which capital gains, arising on transfer of long term capital asset, is chargeable to tax.

ITA No.: 1990/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 2 of 2 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Vadodara (“the AO”) in charging interest u/s. 234B of the Act.

3.

Vide our order of even date in the case of Ashish Tandon, the then Chairman of the Company, we have made certain observations with respect to the nature of transaction which has resulted in the impugned income in the hands of this assessee as also in the case of Ashish Tandon. These observations may have some relevance in the adjudication on this appeal as well. However, as that decision was not available at the point of time when this appeal was heard, we consider it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law by way of a speaking order on specific contentions raised by the assessee, after giving yet another opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.

In view of the above discussions and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) in terms of direction above.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court today on the 8th day of February, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- Madhumita Roy Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, dated the 8th day of February, 2019. PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File

By order

Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 50

All 392 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →