COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KOSHALYA INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Gujarat, per C.K. Thakker, J., disposed of the reference unanswered. The Court noted that the matter had been decided in favour of the assessee by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and a concession was made before the Tribunal. The Court also referred to a previous decision in CIT v. Leena Sarabhai (221 ITR 520) where a similar question was left unanswered due to peculiar facts and circumstances. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the reference was also disposed of without answering the question posed. No order as to costs was made. The operative direction is that the reference is disposed of unanswered.
What were the facts?
This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against Koshalya Investments Pvt. Ltd. The reference concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the judgment. The order under challenge is the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The core issue revolves around whether the assessee incurred a capital gains tax liability upon receiving shares of an amalgamated company in exchange for its holdings in the amalgamating company. The ITAT had previously decided in favour of the assessee. The High Court notes that a similar matter, CIT v. Leena Sarabhai, was left unanswered by the Court due to peculiar facts and circumstances. This reference also stands disposed of unanswered.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that there was no transfer and consequently no capital gains tax liability when the assessee received certain shares of the amalgamated company in lieu of its holding in the amalgamating company? (Question of law and fact, concerning capital gains tax liability on shares received in amalgamation). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that there was no transfer, and therefore, no capital gains tax liability arose. The judgment indicates the matter was decided in favour of the assessee by the authorities, including the ITAT, and also notes a concession made before the Tribunal. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's specific arguments or any authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by the revenue. It only states that the Commissioner of Income Tax is the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per C.K.Thakkar,J.):
The following question is referred for the opinion of this Court:-
"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that there was no transfer and consequently no capital gains tax liability when the assessee received certain shares of the amalgamated company in lieu of its holding in the amalgamating company?"
The matter was decided in favour of assessee in view of the earlier decision by the authorities, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the concession made before the Tribunal. In fact, in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. LEENA SARABHAI (N.CH.), 221 ITR 520, when the matter reached this Court, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances, the question was left unanswered. In these circumstances, this reference also stands disposed of unanswered. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.
` ***
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
