DCIT v. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd.

312 ITR 63High Court2009#5867 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)short term capital gainsection 153ctransfersection 15companybusinessdocument

Judgments citing DCIT v. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd.

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JARUL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3514/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] DCIT, M/s Jarul Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 60, 2nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Circle-13(1), Central Revenue Building, Vs Vasant Vihar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110057 New Delhi-110002 PAN-AAACJ4483D Revenue Assessee Revenue by Sh. Praveen Rawal, CIT-DR Assessee by Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. And Ms. Ragini Handa, CA Date of Hearing 06.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement 23.06.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, This appeal by the Revenue is directed against t…

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 1

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 M/s. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. JCIT, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. PAN : AAECS 6424 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27.11.20…

M/S. MILI MARKETING PVT. LTD,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2510/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ishtyag Ahmed, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 153C

…the convertible warrant amounted to a transfer within the meaning of s.2(47) of the said Act has now been made clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs.Grace Collis (2001) 248 ITR 323 as also by the Karnataka High Court in BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 63. We agree with the interpretation given by the Karnataka High Court in BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. (supra) and we see no reason to take a different view. The restrictive meaning given to the word transfer by the Supreme Court decision in Vania Silk Mills P.Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 647 has been over ruled by the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case…

M/S. MILI MARKETING PVT. LTD,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2509/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ishtyag Ahmed, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 153C

…the convertible warrant amounted to a transfer within the meaning of s.2(47) of the said Act has now been made clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs.Grace Collis (2001) 248 ITR 323 as also by the Karnataka High Court in BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 63. We agree with the interpretation given by the Karnataka High Court in BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. (supra) and we see no reason to take a different view. The restrictive meaning given to the word transfer by the Supreme Court decision in Vania Silk Mills P.Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 647 has been over ruled by the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case…

SHRIRAM RETAIL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1252/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Subba Rao (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the case of DCIT Vs B.S. Infosolution Pvt Ltd in ITA No.2989 /Del/2016 dated 23.08.2018 though the facts of the appellant's case are different. 11. The CIT(A) erred in overlooking the Karnataka High court decision in the case of CIT Vs BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd (312 ITR 63) and Delhi High court decision in the case of CIT Vs Chand Ratan Bagri (230 ITR 258) and ITAT Kolkata decision in the case of DCIT Vs Diamond Company Ltd (162 ITD 131) 12. For these and other grounds that may be adduced before or at the time of hearing the ITAT may be pleased to i. delete the disallowance made u/s.14A r.w Rule 8D ii. delete the di…

CHATURANAN INDUSTRIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3565/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Chaturanan Industries Ltd. The Dcit, H-108, Connaught Circus, Central Circle-20(Now Cc-8), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aaacc0762G Assessee Revenue

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 2(47)(ii)

…of the convertible warrant amounted to a transfer within the meaning of s.2(47) of the said Act has now been made clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs Grace Collis (2001) 248 ITR 323 as also by the Karnataka High Court in BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd (2009) 312 ITR 63. We agree with the interpretation given by Karnataka High Court in BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd (supra) and we see no reason to take a different view. The restrictive meaning given to the word transfer by the Supreme Court decision in Vania Silk Mills P. Ltd (1991) 191 ITR 647 has been over ruled by the larger bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Mr…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AZALEA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3667/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Azalea Infrastructure Pvt. Circle-3(2), Room No. 380B, Cr Ltd, Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi 296, Forest Lane, Neb Sarai, Sainik Farms, New Delhi Pan: Aaica8733B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain and Shri LalitFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT DR

…urt in case of Sri Chand Ratan Bagri 329 ITR 356, the decision of the coordinate bench in case of CIT versus Pavitra Commercial Limited ITA number 782/D/2015 dated 14/10/2015, 108 taxmann.com 455 principal Commissioner of income tax versus Kanyalala M Sheth , 312 ITR 63 DCIT versus BPL Sanyo finance Ltd and Dynamic Foundations Private Limited versus CIT 232 taxmann 501. He further stated that the issue is also squarely covered by the several decisions of the coordinate benches. It was further stated that there is no tax evasion in this case as suggested by the learned assessing officer, as the aforesaid loss has…

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2205/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 142Section 143

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 2120/Del/2005 2001-02 IFCI LIMITED The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. IFCI Towers Income Tax 61 Nehru Place Circle – 11(1) New Delhi C R Building PAN: AAACT0668G I P Estate New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No Assessment Year 2205/Del/2005 2001-2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income IFCI LIMITED Vs. Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) 61 Nehru Place C R Building New Delhi I P Estate PAN: AAACT0668G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) For As…

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2120/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 142Section 143

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 2120/Del/2005 2001-02 IFCI LIMITED The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. IFCI Towers Income Tax 61 Nehru Place Circle – 11(1) New Delhi C R Building PAN: AAACT0668G I P Estate New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No Assessment Year 2205/Del/2005 2001-2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income IFCI LIMITED Vs. Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) 61 Nehru Place C R Building New Delhi I P Estate PAN: AAACT0668G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) For As…

LUSTRE MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6396/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Circle 4(1), A-1/25, Sector-15, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2457D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate, Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21St September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-5, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…e assessee. While doing so, the Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mrs. Grace Collis (2001) 248 ITR 323, the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd., 312 ITR 63, the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chand Ratan Bagri, 230 CTR 258 and the decision of the 2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vania Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 98 CTR 153. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal, but, without any success. Subsequently, the Tribunal, vide ITA No.3836/Del/2011, order dated 13th Fe…

SOWRAJ INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIRCLE-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3175/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Mr.M.Viswanathan,C.A +For Respondent: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…y are their associates own majority of the shares. :- 3 -: BY no stretch of logic can this be categorized as tax avoidance measure. This is a normal business activity. The assessee relied on the following judgements. DCIT Vs. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 63(Kar) C.I.T Vs. Chand Ratan Bagri (2010) 230 CTR 258(Delhi) CWT Vs. Arvind Narotam 173 ITR 479(SC) Azad Bachao Andaolan 263 ITR 706(SC) Vodafone International Holdings Vs. UOI (1999) 8 SCC 667 which water downs the McDowell case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant namely, M/s.Sowraj Investments Pvt Ltd., is a company incorp…

NAYAN TRADERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3134/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Nayan Traders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, H-108, Connaught Circus, Central Circle-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacn8677K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashwani Seth, Ca & Shri V.K. Jain, Ca Respondent By M/S. Pramita M. Biswas, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 2(47)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Nayan Traders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, H-108, Connaught Circus, Central Circle-8, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAACN8677K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ashwani Seth, CA & Shri V.K. Jain, CA Respondent by M/s. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 24.04.2019 Date of pronouncement 26.04.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against consolidated order dated 25/02/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 761/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…ts right in shares of M/s HH Interior and Auto Component Pvt. Ltd. then it is a transfer of capital asset as per definition U/s 2(24) of the Act. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. 312 ITR 63 (Kar) and submitted that the relinquishment of asset or extinguishment of ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 49 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT any right therein fall in the definition of transfer U/s 2(47) of the Act. In the said case, the forfeiture of share application money was held to be relinquishment of asset or extinguishment of right therei…

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 464/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…ts right in shares of M/s HH Interior and Auto Component Pvt. Ltd. then it is a transfer of capital asset as per definition U/s 2(24) of the Act. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. 312 ITR 63 (Kar) and submitted that the relinquishment of asset or extinguishment of ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 49 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT any right therein fall in the definition of transfer U/s 2(47) of the Act. In the said case, the forfeiture of share application money was held to be relinquishment of asset or extinguishment of right therei…

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 445/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Sudhakara Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 2(47)

…such reduction was taxable as capital gain. However, with due regard, the facts of the case are contrary to this case as there was no reduction in the face value of the shares. Page 5 of 19 11. The AR also referred to the case of DCIT v BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd 312 ITR 63 (Kar) wherein it was held that the cancellation of allotment of shares leading to forfeiture of share application money on the taxpayers failure to deposit call money resulted into short term capital loss with due regard, the facts and circumstances of the case are different hence not applicable. Conversely it is seen in the case of Bennett Colema…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. JUGAL KISHORE ARORA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 157/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 80

…T vs, Ratan Chand Bagri 329 ITR 356 held that forfeiture of amount paid towards convertible warrants is to be treated as Capital loss. The similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of DCIT vs. BPL Sanyo Finance Limited [2009] 312 ITR 63. 6 ITA.No.157/Del./2015 Shri Jugal Kishore Arora, New Delhi. In view of the above, the loss suffered on forfeiture of the amount paid as advance for share warrants to the company is a capital loss and is assessable accordingly. The promoters inadvertently has not claimed the said loss in their Return of Income filed for the relevant year i.e. A.Y…

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE DIAMOND COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 326/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 111ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)

…97] 94 Taxman; 164 (SC), CIT v. G.Narasimhan [1999] 102 Taxman 66 (SC). In the same way, forfeiture of share application money because of failure by an assessee to pay balance amount on allotment of shares, is “transfer’ – CIT v. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 63 (Kar.). In view of the facts of the case, the express provisions of the Act and the principle of law as laid down by the Apex Court and other High Court, I am of the view that the right over 129412 optionally convertible share warrants of West Coast Paper mills Ltd., owned by the appellant was a capital asset under sec. 2(14) of the Act and its fo…

SHRIRAM RETAIL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 885/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmindu, CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ts. However, the AR of the appellant relied on the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Chand Rattan Bagri [329 ITR 356] and ratio of the decision of the Kanataka High Court in the case of DCIT v. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. [312 ITR 63]. On the other hand, the AO relied upon the ratio of the decision of the Honble ITAT, Ahmadabad "B" Bench in the case of Ajay Singh Mehta v. DCIT [114 ITD 628]. In the case cited by the AO, the Hon'ble ITAT Ahmadabad 'B' Bench, relied upon the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] [12…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI CHAND RATAN BAGRI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 31 / 2010HC Delhi20 Jan 2010
For Appellant: Ms P.L. Bansal with Ms Anshul SharmaFor Respondent: Mr Salil Aggarwal with Mr Prakash Kumar
Section 2(47)Section 45

…ts in a capital asset independent of and otherwise than on account of transfer.” 10. Mr. Aggarwal also placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. BPL Sanyo Finance Limited:312 ITR 63 (KAR). In the latter decision, the question was similar to the one which the Revenue is seeking to raise before us. There also there was a short term capital loss claimed on account of forfeiture of the share application money. The Court observed that the assessee‟s rights to the shares were extinguished and, therefore, this amounted to sh…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI CHAND RATAN BAGRI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/31/2010HC Delhi20 Jan 2010
For Appellant: Ms P.L. Bansal with Ms Anshul SharmaFor Respondent: Mr Salil Aggarwal with Mr Prakash Kumar
Section 2(47)Section 45

…ts in a capital asset independent of and otherwise than on account of transfer.” 10. Mr. Aggarwal also placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. BPL Sanyo Finance Limited:312 ITR 63 (KAR). In the latter decision, the question was similar to the one which the Revenue is seeking to raise before us. There also there was a short term capital loss claimed on account of forfeiture of the share application money. The Court observed that the assessee‟s rights to the shares were extinguished and, therefore, this amounted to sh…