TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3418/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 March 2018AY 2007-083 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue had become academic as a co-ordinate bench had already decided the matter in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the AO's decision to not consider the cost of acquisition of shares while computing short-term capital gains. The assessee had paid USD 150 million for these shares.

What were the issues?

Whether the cost of acquisition of shares should be considered while computing short-term capital gains. The applicability of Section 93 of the Act was also a related consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Smt. Arati Vissanji, A.R
For Respondent: Smt. S. Padmaja, D.R
Hearing: 19.03.2018Pronounced: 22.03.2018

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.03.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2007-08.

2.

The various grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

“The Appellant respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] dated 29 March 2016 under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following ground:

2 M/s. Tata Industries Ltd. Non granting of deduction for cost of USD 150 million while computing the short term capital gains. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned 1. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not considering the cost of acquisition of US$150 Million i.e. Rs 661,57,50,000/- paid by the Appellant to acquire shares of Apex Investment (Mauritius) Holding (P) Limited while computing the short term capital gains.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the earlier CIT(A) ' has not only given a finding about the nature of addition but also the quantum of such short-term capital gain.”

3.

The issue raised by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the action of the AO in not considering the cost of acquisition paid by the assessee to purchase the shares of Apex Investment (Mauritius) Holding (P) Ltd. while computing the short term capital gain.

4.

At the outset, the Ld. senior counsel Mrs. Arati Vissanji brought to the notice of the Bench that the issue raised by the assessee has become academic in nature in view of the fact that the issue has been decided by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2007-08 vide order dated 10.11.17. The Ld. A.R. referred to para No.8.1 of the said order and submitted that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee so far the applicability of provision of section 93 of the Act is concerned and accordingly no tax is payable.

5.

The Ld. D.R. also fairly agreed to the contention of the Ld. A.R. on the issue that the issue has been covered in favour

6.

Having heard both the parties and perused the relevant material placed before us including the impugned order, we are of the view that issue has already been decided by the ITAT and thus the appeal has become academic. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.03.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →