M/S MERCANTILE VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It found that the transaction appeared to be a structured arrangement to derive undue benefit of short-term capital loss, as the fair market value of the shares at the time of allotment was significantly lower than the face value.
What were the facts?
The assessee converted unsecured loans advanced to eight financially distressed companies into equity shares at face value. Subsequently, the assessee sold these shares at a lower fair market value, resulting in a claimed short-term capital loss. The PCIT revised the Assessing Officer's order, deeming the transaction prejudicial to revenue.
What were the issues?
Whether the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was justified, and whether the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee was genuine or a result of a collusive transaction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE
PER MANJUNATHA.G, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, dated 31.03.2022, and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
A. The order passed by the PCIT under Sec.263 of the I.T. Act revising the well considered order of the Assessing Officer is wrong, contrary to la
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.
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 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026