AKTIEBOLAGET ELECTROLUX SWEDEN,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG I, MUMBAI

ITA/7628/Mum/2012,AY.-2006-07:Brief Facts: Assessee-company,M/s Aktiebolaget Electrolux(ABE),incorporated and based in Sweden,is engaged in the business of manufacture,sale and export of white goods.On the basis of assessment proceedings,completed for the AY.2007-08,as per the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP),the AO re-opened the assessment for the year under consideration, invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act.The assessee objected the re-opening of the assessment and stated that the earlier return filed by it should be taken as return filed in response to the notice of section 148 of the Act.The AO dealt with the issue of claim made by it under the heads LTCL and STCL.After considering the submission of the assessee,the AO forwarded a draft order to the assessee on 15.12.2011.Aggrived by his order,it approached the DRP on 31. 01. 2012.Vide its order,06.09.2012,the DRP issued directions to the AO.On 18.10.2012,the AO

ITA/8695/M/10 ,AY.07-08 &7628/M/12 (06-07) –Aktiebolaget completed the assessment u/s.143(3)r.w.s.148 r.w.s.144C (13)of the Act,determining the income of the assessee at Rs.3,24,70,122/-. 2.Ground no.2 about disallowing the claim of LTCL amounting to Rs.5,37,00,60,118/-and STCL of Rs.82,70,74,879/-arising on sale of shares of Electrolux Kelvinator Limited (EKL).During the assessment proceedings the AO found that the assessee was holding majority of shares in EKL, that EKL wanted to delist its shares from stock exchanges,that as the majority shareholder the assessee made an open offer to buy the shares of minority shareholders as per SEBI Rules 2003, that subsequent to said open offer the shareholding of the assessee in EKL was increased to 90. 21%, that in the year 2005 it additionally subscribed to the shares of EKL which increased its share holding to 91.85%,that the shares of EKL were then delisted from the stock exchanges, that as per the delisting guidelines the assessee had to provide an exit opportunity to the shareholders who have not exercised their right in the earlier open offer,that it came up with the exit offer for residuary shareholders between 11/02/2005 and 11/02/2006,that it acquired 2,50, 63,026 shares through the exit offer,that it entered in to sale agreement dated 07/07/2005 with Mr.V.N.Dhoot (VND)of Videocon Industries Limited(VIL)for sale of his existing equity shareholding (91.85%) delisting offer shares and also 1,65,00,000 preference shares held by it in EKL. From the share purchase agreement,the AO found that the assessee offered to sell its existing share holding to the tune of 41,18,99,418 and also 2,50,63,026 shares acquired through the open offer, that 41,18, 99,418 equity shares were sold for Rs. 1/- and 1,65,00,000 preference shares were sold for USD 9(Rs.420/-),that it suffered LTCL of Rs.3,87,77,46,609/-and STCL of Rs.82,70,74,879/-on transfer of the above mentioned 41,18,99,418 equity shares of EKL,that it also suffered LTCL of Rs.149,23,13,508/- on transfer of 1,65,00,000 preference shares of EKL, pursuant to sale agreement dated 07/07/ 2005,that during the AY.under appeal it had earned LTCG of Rs. 2,89, 57,262/- and STCG Rs. 4,50,950/- on the balance 1,35,00,000 preference shares after redeeming it at par.After adjusting the gains,it claimed net LTCL of Rs.5,34,11,02,855/- and STCL of Rs. 82,66,23, 929/- in the return.The AO directed the assessee to substantiate the above transaction of sale of shareholding of EKL held by it for a combined price of Rs. 421/-.The assessee filed a share purchase agreement dated.07.07.2005,entered in to with VND.It contended that at the time of sale of initial 91.85% of shareholding of EKL the value of entire equity shareholding was adopted at Rs 1/- and value of preference shareholding was adopted at Rs763/-as per valuation report of PWC dated 05/07/2005,that the value of USD 1 for sale of 2, 50,63,026 shares acquired through exit offer was taken on the basis of certificate,dated 13/05/ 2006,issued by CA. G. D. Apte,that the accumulated losses of EKL,as on 31/12/2004,was Rs.664 Crores,that it was incurring losses and this trend was unlikely to reverse in the immediate future, that EKL's ability to continue as a going concern was dependent on the continuous financial support of ABE,that it had evaluated various buyers before finalising VND as a buyer of EKL's shares. 2.a.After considering the submissions,the AO held that the price per share in the month of July, 2004 in the Bombay Stock Exchange was Rs.9.88/-,being the price per share before the delisting of the company,that it had chosen to sell its entire stake of shares held in EKL at a negligible price instead of selling the shares through Stock Exchange at a higher value,that the rates in the stock exchange indicated that the it could have acquired much higher prices then selling the entire stake for USD 9 and USD 1,that the assessee's argument-that the company was loss making and therefore it had to be sold at a negligible price-was not tenable,that it being the holder of more than 76% of equity shares of EKL would not have subscribed to the rights issue 3

ITA/8695/M/10 ,AY.07-08 &7628/M/12 (06-07) –Aktiebolaget for acquiring further stake in a sick company,that open offer for acquiring the shares was on the assessee had already entered into an agreement for sale of shares to VND at a negligible value, that it continued to invest in the share of EKL even though the financial position was known to it, that having already agreed to sell whatever shares acquired at USD 1 it chose to acquire 2, 50,63,026 shares at Rs 10/- each,amounting to Rs.25,06,30,260/-,that those shares were acquired by it at Rs.10 per share after agreeing to sell the entire stake at USD 1,that EKL was amalgamat - ed with VIL w.e.f, 01/01/2005,that that the transaction of the sale of existing shares at USD 9 as well as shares acquired by the assessee through open offer at USD 1was arranged one,that from the report of Price Waterhouse,dated 05/07/2005,it was clear that the auditor had adopted the method of book value multiple of Bombay Stock Exchange National Index and price-earning multiple of Bombay Stock Exchange National Index,that it had not taken into consideration the valuation of assets held by EKL for determination of its worth,that the financial statements revealed that EKL was having assets like free hold land, leased hold land, buildings and plant & machinery,that the market value of those assets had not been taken into consideration for arriving at net worth and correct value of the shares,that the assessee's argument-that it had contacted other prospective buyers before crystallising or finalizing deal with VND-was not substantiated,that it had not given the details of any such prospective buyer,that the transaction for sale of entire stake for just USD 9 and USD 1 was only an arrangement motivated to claim tax benefit, that ultimately EKL had amalgamated with VIL of which VND was Chairman and Managing Director,that EKL had been amalgamated with VIL w.e.f. 01/01/ 2005 in terms of the scheme of amalgamation approved by the Bombay High Court,that in accordance with the scheme the entire business and undertaking of EKL stood transferred and vested in VIL w.e.f. 01/01/2005,that it was hard to believe that the company which was holding majority of stake in EKL was unaware of such amalgamation,that the transfer of shares was not made at market price,that the valuation of the shares had not been done correctly,that shares were acquired for higher price after agreeing for selling the same for negligible price.The AO directed the assessee to file explanation as to why the losses claimed on sale of shares should not be disallowed. 2.b.The assessee filed a detailed reply before the AO.He considered the said reply and the reply filed by the assessee for the AY.2007-08.After considering both the replies,he held that the assessee had not been able to justify the transaction for sale of its 41,18,99,418 equity shares and 1,65,00,000 preference shares at meager amount of USD 9 as per the agreement, and also 2,50,63,026 shares of EKL acquired by it through open offer for a consideration of Rs.25,06,30, 260/- were sold for mere USD 1,that it had relied upon the valuation report dated 05/05/2005 issued by PWC,that value determined by PWC for entire asset was Rs. 1/-,that same could not be accepted,that while preparing the valuation report PWC had not taken into consideration the market value of assets held by the company,that according to the agreement the assessee had entered into contract for sale of shares, with VND vide agreement dated 07/07/ 2005,that the certificate of CA in respect of these shares was dated 13/05/2006,that it was not clear how could a person rely on certificate issued by CA on 13/05/2006 for entering into an agreement on 07/07/2005,that the certificate dated 13/05/2006 could not have been given by VND to the assessee prior to the said date,that the consent to sell and buy the equity shares was given by the assessee to VND on 27/10/2006,that undertaking that VND was eligible for acquiring shares of EKL had also been given by him on 27/10 /2006,that at the time of filing scheme of amalgamation shares were held by the assessee,that the transaction for sale of shares at USD 9 and USD 1 entered into by the assessee with VND was an arranged one,that vide letter dated 4

ITA/8695/M/10 ,AY.07-08 &7628/M/12 (06-07) –Aktiebolaget 26/02/2005 Ambit Corporate Finance P.Ltd.(Ambit)was asked for providing services with regard to identifying potential buyers namely strategic and financial for sale of stake in EKL,that on perusal of the said letter it could be seen that nothing had been mentioned about the net worth of the EKL and price for the sale of stake,that the assessee had agreed to pay fees of Rs. 2 Crores for the services to identify and evaluate prospective buyers,that ultimately even after paying Rs. 2 Crores for identifying potential buyers it had settled for selling its stake at negligible amount, that it had preferred not to disclose or provide the names of such potential buyers, evaluated and identified by Ambit,that it could be safely presumed that by not disclosing the names of other buyers the assessee wanted to justify the sale of its stake for a meager amount of USD 9 and USD 1,that the assessee’s submission-that it had evaluated other buyers before finalizing the deal-was therefore not substantiated.He referred to the case of Sumati Dayal(214ITR80)and held that the transaction entered in to by the assessee with VND failed on test human probability.The AO recomputed the capital gains.He referred to the directions of the DRP and held that the DRP had confirmed the action of the AO.He completed the assessment determining the income at Rs.3.24 Crores,as stated earlier and disallowed the claim of LTCL of 387.77 Crores and STLC of Rs.82.70 Crores,made by the assessee. 3.Before us,the AR contended that the STCL/LTCLclaimed in the return of income were properly disclosed by it and were duly explained in the computation of income,that the option of selling its own shareholding through the stock exchange was no longer available with ABE as the process of delisting of shares was started much before the divestment of shares by it,that it was a separate and independent process,that the shares of EKL were not traded on the stock exchange on the date when it was agreed to sell shares to VND i. e. on 07.07.2005,that the share price before delisting could not be the guiding factor in valuing shares of EKL,that it was selling its stake to VND,a resident,it had to comply with the FEMA regulations,that the shares had been valued as per the method prescribed under the Foreign Exchange Management(Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000,that the net worth of EKL was negative and it had huge liabilities,that it was beneficial for the assessee to sell of the shares the then buyer at USD 1 and save itself from legal hassles in settling the liabilities,that the valuation of EKL's shares had been done by the independent Chartered Accountants,that the AO should not sit in the judgment of ABE as to whom it should sell its stake,that the decision to sell shares to VND was driven by the commercial factors,that the buyer and the assessee were unrelated parties,that that in respect of transaction between unrelated parties terms of agreement cannot be reworked,that transaction of sale had been taken place in the scheme of an amalgamation of the companies wherein number of companies like Intron Ltd., Electrolux India Ltd. merged into EKL,that transaction had not been viewed as that of transfer of shares but as transfer of undertaking by the assessee,that the allegation that the transaction was a slump sale could not be supported by any evidence and was merely based on surmises and conjectures,that the assessee had not claimed such loss against any income till date,that the contention-that it could have acquired much higher price than selling the entire stake in EKL for just USD 1-was without considering the facts of the case and merely based on assumptions,that post sale of entire share holding in EKL by the assessee in July,2005 it did not maintain audited financial statements for EKL,that though the appointed date of amalgamation was prior to sale of shares in EKL by ABE the implementation was accorded approval only on 30.06.2006,that and it actually got effective on 21.07.2006,that it indicated that ABE was not involved in the process of amalgamation as the entire process undertook post the sale of initial share holding by ABE to 5

ITA/8695/M/10 ,AY.07-08 &7628/M/12 (06-07) –Aktiebolaget VND,that the final record date for fixing the entitlement of shares of VIL pursuant to scheme of amalgamation was post the sale of balance shares by the assessee,that ABE evaluated various buyers/ options before crystallising/finalising on VND as the buyer for EKL's shares,that for undertaking an exercise of identification and evaluation of potential buyers/ options ABE had engaged Ambit Corporate Finance Private Ltd(Ambit),that evaluation of various buyers was being performed and that too by a professional firm,that the option of selling its own shareholding through the stock exchange in July,2004 was no longer available with ABE,that ABE was unable to provide the names of such potential buyers evaluated and identified as this information was highly confidential and ABE was bound by the corporate governance norms and certain confidentiality agreements signed with such potential buyers,that the process of delisting of shares started much before the divestment of shares by ABE and was a separate and independent process,that in all the transactions with ABE i.e. acquisition of shares from residual shareholders or sale to VND no related party to ABE was involved,that share acquisition transactions by ABE were specifically monitored under the SEBI Delisting Guidelines,that it could not be said that the transactions of sale of shares acquired in the Open was arranged one,that the value of consideration to be taken into account for the purposes of computation of capital gains tax was the consideration actually received by the assessee or what accrues to the assessee,that the consideration actually received by the assessee or what accrued to the assessee was USD 1,that on that basis which the gain or loss had to be determined,that computation could not be made at on notional or hypothetical basis,that EKL did not have a clear title in respect of the freehold land and building thereon at Nandalur,that the registration of the conveyance,deed and other legal formalities were in progress,that EKL had closed down the operations of Nandalur Plant in August 2003,that consequent to closure EKL had fully written down the value of the related Land and Building amounting to Rs.2,165.81 lacs to Nil,being the net realizable value,that the AO ignored that the amount of contingent liabilities associated with EKL and also pending litigation in various disputed matters against EKL,that even if the valuation of these assets was undertaken the same could not have resulted in any positive worth substantial enough to be different from the valuation as per the book value multiple/price earning multiple as per the valuation report issued by Price Waterhous,that SEBI and the RBI had knowledge of entire transaction had approved it,that the AO had no right to challenge the actual consideration received by the assessee unless he proved that consideration was not reflected correctly.He relied upon the cases of Dhawan Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.(238 ITR 486), Atlas Corporation (57 ITD 139), Kameshwari Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. (102 TTJ 461) etc. On a specific query by the bench about claim of carry forward and set off of the capital loss in subsequent years,the AR stated that before the AO during the assessment proceedings the assessee had agreed that it would give up its claim to the said loss and it would not set off same against any capital gains which it might earn in future,that the AO ignored the submissions made by the assessee without assigning any reason.It was also stated that the time period for claiming set off had also lapsed.With regard to the observation of the DRP that the transaction of sale of shares was to be treated as transfer of business,the AR made further submission.He stated that transaction did not constitute transfer of undertaking,that if the DRP’s contention was to be accepted it would mean that adjustment were to be made in the assessment of EKL for the AY.2006-07,that EKL had already amalgamated with VIL w.e.f.1.1.2005,that the factual position was ignored by both the authorities.The AR also challenged the observation of the DRP that transfer of sale of shares in the AY.2007-08 was not relevant to the said AY.,but was related to the AY.2006-07.He argued 6

ITA/8695/M/10 ,AY.07-08 &7628/M/12 (06-07) –Aktiebolaget that as on the date of entering in to sale purchase agreement with VND to transfer the shares the assessee had transferred shares held by it i.e.2,50,63,026 shares,that the assessee had acquired the shares under exit offer over the period from March 2005 to March 2006,that the transaction of the sale of shares had to be considered in AY.2007-08,that the sale of shares also took place in 2007-08, that the AO re-opened the AY.for the year under appeal after the assessment for next AY.was completed,that he was aware of all the above facts,that even then he ignored the facts and made addition for the AY.under consideration.The AR placed Reliance on the decisions of Premier Automobiles(264 ITR 193),D.S.Bist & Sons(149 ITR 276), Braithwaite & Co.(India) Ltd.(111 ITR 542),Salitho Ores Ltd.(344 ITR161),Oberoi Hotels(P)Ltd.(334ITR293). 2.4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The basic issues to be decided are whether the transaction entered in to by the assessee in transferring the shares to VND for USD 9 and USD 1 was bonafide and as a result the LTCL and STCL claimed by it were allowable.We find that during the FY.2005-06,ABE entered into a share purchase agreement,7/7/2005 with VND for the sale of all its existing equity share holding in EKL including all such equity shares, ABE would acquire as a result of the Exit offer, at a total value of USD 1, that the sale of shares in EKL by ABE to VND resulted in the LTCL of 3,87,77,46,609/-STCL of Rs.82,70,74,879/-,that it had agreed to sell all its existing shareholding and subsequent acquisitions via a single arrangement,i.e. share purchase agreement, dated 07.07. 2005 with VND, that while selling the shares acquired under the open/ exit offer,it had agreed to sell 25,063,026 shares for USD 1 relying on the valuation certificate provided by VND and issued by the Chartered Accountants,G.D. Apte & Co,which certified that the sales consideration of USD 1 could be taken as the fair market value for 25,063,026 equity shares,that at the time of sale of initial 91.85% shareholding of EKL,the assessee had relied upon the valuation report of 05.07.2005 issued by Price Waterhouse which evidenced that the value of equity share capital of EKL as on 30.06.2005 was assessed at Rs.1/,that the accumulated losses at the end of 31.12.2004 had exceeded fifty percent of EKL 's net worth, that EKL got amalgamated with VIL prior to the close of its financial year ending in September,that ABE had sold off its existing shareholding in entirety in EKL to VND in July 2005 and the shares acquired under the Open Offer from minority shareholders of EKL to in the year 2006,that EKL amalgamated with VIL with retrospective effect from 01.01.2005,that the scheme of amalgamation of EKL with VIL received sanction of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 30.06. 2006,that some of the preference shares held by it in EKLwere redeemed at par resulting in long term and short term gain of Rs.2,89,57,262/- and Rs.4,50,950/- respectively which were duly declared in the return of income,that total LTCL and STCL declared by the assessee for the AY.s.2006-07 and 2007-08 was Rs.642.50 Crores i.e.Rs. 559.14 Crores for the AY.05-06(Rs.534.11 Crores+25.03 Crores)and Rs.83.35 Crores(Rs.86.66 Crores+69.06 lakhs) for the next AY.,that the assessee informed the AO that to buy peace and avoid litigation it would not set off the loss against any future income to be earned under the head capital gains.It is a fact that the period of claiming the loss had also lapsed when the appeal was heard by us.The AO and the DRP were of the opinion that the entire transaction was entered in to claim tax benefit.We find that the assessee had not claimed any tax benefit in form of setting off of its taxable income against the carried forward losses-LTCL and STLC-in the subsequent years. We would like to reproduce the one of the observation made by the AO,to hold the transaction non-genuine and the sentence reads as under: “…….because it is quite possible that the assessee might have been offered more price than it 7

ITA/8695/M/10 ,AY.07-08 &7628/M/12 (06-07) –Aktiebolaget had received through the transaction with Dhoot.” In our opinion,any ‘possibility’ cannot take place of an ‘evidence’ and assessments made without evidences cannot be sustained.We agree that the transaction prima facie needed verification and investigation,as the sale price was meager,as pointed out by the AO and the DRP.But,it was only the starting pointed for scrutinising the matter deeply and bring some evidences to prove that the transaction was sham.We find that the AO or the DRP have not brought anything on record that could lead to conclusion that sale and purchase agreement in question was a colourable device. Here,we would like to discuss the judgment of Oberoi Hotels(P)Ltd.(334ITR293)of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court.Facts of the case were that SKB held a licence from Pepsico Inc. U. S. A., for use of the trade mark Pepsicola,Lehar, Mirinda, etc., in conjunction with an Indian trade mark in relation to beverage products to be bottled, sold, distributed and marketed in the Vijaywada territory of Andhra Pradesh,that the licence agreement was initially for a period of ten years, renewable for an additional term of five years,that the assessee-company decided to take over SKB with all of its assets and liabilities including the rights under the contract for using the trade mark of Pepsico Inc.,U. S. A.,that the total investment in acquiring the shares of SKB was Rs.8, 78,11,500/-, that the payments were made through account payee cheques,that subsequently the assessee sold its shareholding in SKB for Rs.18,33,752/-,that the assessee sustained a loss of Rs.8,59,77,725/-.According to the AO the assessee-company could have easily waited for a reasonable period of time for watching the market and could also have invested a further amount of Rs. 9 to 10 crores to revive the business of SKB.Consequently,he observed that the entire transaction was a colourable one and should be considered as having been entered into with the intention of offsetting the long-term capital gain of Rs.4,03,89,154/- which the assessee did actually earn during the relevant accounting period and thus, declined to allow the claim of the assessee towards short-term capital loss.The FAA held that the transaction should be treated to be genuine and not a colourable one and the loss arising to the assessee-company should be treated as long-term capital loss and he directed the AO to treat the loss accordingly.This was upheld by the Tribunal.On appeal to the High Court as under: ….it was not within the province of the Assessing Officer to ignore an otherwise genuine transaction and to brand it as a colourable one ……The loss was deductible.” In our opinion,AO or the FAA/DRP does not power to question the prudence of a business transaction entered within four corners of law.In the matter of Salithto Ores Ltd.(344ITR161) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court(Panaji)has held that the expenditure incurred for pursuit of the business or exploitation of a business opportunity cannot be denied by the tax authorities on the ground that the business decision was imprudent and that it was a matter of commercial expediency and the assessee was the best judge of it.So,if considering the financial conditions of the ELK the assessee entered in to a transaction to sell the shares then the judgment of the assessee has to be taken as final-no one can substitute his wisdom.But.if the AO can bring evidence to prove that the transaction had more facets than the meeting the eyes,the situation will change.But,in the case before us,there is no such evidence to hold that transaction is non- genuine. We are also of the opinion that full value of consideration cannot be substituted by Fair Market Value(FMV).We would like to refer to the matter of K.P.Varghese(131ITR597),wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that sub-section (2) of s. 52 of the Act can be invoked only where the consideration for the transfer of a capital asset has been understated by the assessee, or, in other words, the full value of the consideration in respect of the transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received by the assessee, and the burden of proving such 8

ITA/8695/M/10 ,AY.07-08 &7628/M/12 (06-07) –Aktiebolaget understatement or concealment is on the revenue and that the sub-section has no application in the case of an honest and bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared or disclosed by him.In short,full value of consideration cannot be substituted by FMV.In the case before us,the full value of consideration had been disclosed by the assessee and same cannot be replaced until and unless reliable evidence is brought on record by the AO. We find that the DRP was of the opinion that the transaction should be treated as slum sale rather than sale of shares.In our opinion,approach of the DRP was not as per law.Slump sale could have taken place in case of ELK,not in the case of the assessee.In the case of Premier Automobiles(supra) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “Under section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, capital asset is defined to mean property of any kind held by an assessee whether connected or not connected with his business or profession. The word “property” in the definition of “capital asset” in section 2(14) would include an undertaking acquired as a whole. In the case of a slump sale, there is a sale for consideration. That consideration is paid to the transferor company and not to shareholders. A slump sale agreement is contractual in nature. The only condition in the case of slump sale is that the sale should be for a lump sum sale price. Therefore, in the case of a slump sale, there is a transfer of the entire business activity for a fixed price and sale value is not attributed to individual items of assets.” The entire chain of events-including delisting of shares,permission of SEBI and RBI, agreement with third and unrelated party,losses suffered by ELK,erosion of value of shares of ELK, valuation by independent valuer-we hold that the transaction entered in to by the assessee was genuine and LTCL and STCL suffered by it on sale of shares and on redemption of preference shares of EKL has to be allowed.Grounds no.2-3 are decided in favour of the assessee.

3.Next ground deals with denying the credit in respect of tax deducted at source (TDS) on royalty received from VIL.Before us,the AR stated that the AO had not followed the instructions of the DRP and had not given credit for TDS.Considering the directions of the DRP the AO should have given credit for the tax paid by the assessee,after verification.If he has not given the credit so far, he should do the needful,after making verification.Ground stands allowed for statistical purposes.

4.Ground no.5 is about Levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C.The AR stated that the ground is consequential in nature.Therefore,same needs no separate adjudication.

5.Last ground of appeal is about initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)of the Act.In our opinion the issue raised is premature.Hence,same is dismissed.

ITA/8695/Mum/2010-AY.2007-08: 6.First three ground of appeal raised by the assessee,deal with disallowance of claim of Long Term & Short Term Capital Loss ,non grant of credit of TDS and Levy of Interest under section 234B & 234C.While deciding the appeal for the earlier year,we have adjudicated the identical issues. Following the same ground pertaining to disallowance of STCL and LTCL is decided in favour of the assessee.The AO is directed to verify the claim about the tax deducted at source and allow the claim maid by the assessee.As decided the issue of levy of interest u/s.234 is consequential in nature and hence is not being adjudicated. 9

ITA/8695/M/10 ,AY.07-08 &7628/M/12 (06-07) –Aktiebolaget