COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MANINI NIRANJAN,

ITR/239/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020315199421 November 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manini Niranjan, for Assessment Year 1985-86, purchased preference shares of a private limited company on October 26, 1983, for Rs. 50,000. These shares were sold on October 9, 1984, for Rs. 25,000 to a trust whose trustees were family members of the assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the claimed capital loss of Rs. 25,000, citing the transaction's family nature, high interest on borrowed funds for purchase compared to dividend income, and sale to a family trust. The Deputy CIT (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's claim in the second appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) has filed a reference application before the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the loss of Rs. 25,000 claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal had found that the sale was genuine and not bogus. It reasoned that although the transaction was amongst family members and/or relatives, each was an independent entity, and the identity of the purchaser could not be treated as that of the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue had not contended that the assessee was the beneficiary of the purchaser trust. Therefore, the vendor and purchaser were separate entities, making the loss real. The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's findings of fact, which were based on appreciating the evidence. The reliance on S.P. Jaiswal was deemed not applicable as the controversy there related to Sections 60 & 61 of the Act, concerning income transferred without transfer of the source of income. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the loss of Rs. 25,000 claimed by the assessee? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the Assessing Officer's reasons. The numerous transactions of purchase and sale of shares among family members indicated a colourable device for tax avoidance. The revenue relied on the decision in S.P. Jaiswal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997) 224 ITR 619 (SC), particularly observations at page 626.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 60,Section 61

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/239/1994 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 239 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Applicant(s) Versus MANINI NIRANJAN, - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, MR MANISH J.SHAH FOR MR JP SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, =================================================

ITR/239/1994 2/7 JUDGMENT CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 21/11/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1 The Income Tax Ap

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 370 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →