Kartikeya v. Sarabhai vs. CIT

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( FORMERLY BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU, MUMBAI

…fter indexation aggregating to Rs.8,25,37,070/-should be \nallowed as a deduction since there was a transfer of capital \nasset. \n \n21.12 Further in this connection the AR placed reliance on the \nfollowing decisions: \n \na. Kartikey Sarabhai vs. CIT (SC) (228 ITR 163) \n \nb. CIT vs. Grace Collis and Others (SC) (248 ITR 323) \n \n21.13 The AR vehemently argued that additional shares/units were \nallotted to the appellant without making any payment and \naccordingly as per provisions of Section 55(aa) (i) and (iii) the \ncost of acquisition for original financial assets should be the \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 683…

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…hat the loss after indexation aggregating to Rs.8,25,37,070/-should be allowed as a deduction since there was a transfer of capital asset. 21.12 Further in this connection the AR placed reliance on the following decisions: a. Kartikey Sarabhai vs. CIT (SC) (228 ITR 163) b. CIT vs. Grace Collis and Others (SC) (248 ITR 323) 21.13 The AR vehemently argued that additional shares/units were allotted to the appellant without making any payment and accordingly as per provisions of Section 55(aa) (i) and (iii) the cost of acquisition for original financial assets should be the ITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2…

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

…e and working of its capital gain providing necessary details before the ld. AO and also how the claim of the assessee for long term capital losses is allowable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kartikeya Sarabhai reported in 228 ITR 163 (SC); CIT vs. G. Narasimhan reported in 236 ITR 327 and also the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.P. Sandhu Brothers Chembur Pvt. Ltd. reported in 273 ITR 1(SC). It was specifically pointed out that reduction of capital, i.e., loss of shares tantamount to transfer u/s. 2(47) of the Act and it was held that computation provision…

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

…er rejected the contention of the assessee and by relying on the decision of Page No.| 45 C.O.No. 96/MUM/2002 Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT [228 ITR 222] followed in Karthakaya Sarathai v. CIT [228 ITR 163]. 63. Before the Ld.CIT(A) assessee has fairly accepted that the issue under consideration is against the assessee following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grace Collins v. CIT [248 ITR 323] wherein it was held that extinguishment of the asset itself is also covered by the term “transfer” and would give rise to capital…

ACIT - 15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. PRIVI SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LTD. (EARSWHILE PRIVI ORGANICS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…um Account on the conversion of preference shares into equity shares is the gain arising in the hands of the assessee, which is taxable. The learned DR also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kartikeya V. Sarabhai vs CIT, [1997] 228 ITR 163 (SC). 7. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative (‘learned AR’) by placing reliance upon the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) submitted that the transaction of conversion of preference shares into equity shares is in the hands of the shareholder and therefore the addition has been rightly deleted by the learned CIT(A)…

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

…eputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range (1)(1) [ITA No. 826/MUM/2016, Assessment Year 2011-12, dated 6.02.2020], the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has, by relying upon the judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case Kartikeya V Sarabhai and Anr Vs. CIT: 228 ITR 163 (SC), CIT vs G Narasimhan: 236 ITR 327 (SC) and CIT vs Mrs Grace Collis: 248 ITR 323 (SC), allowed the claim for Long Term Capital Loss by holding that the extinguishment of rights of the shareholders as a result of reduction of share capital results in „transfer‟. 8. Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order pass…

VODAFONE IDEA LTD (ERSTWHILE ADITYA BIRLA TELECOM LTD),MUMBAI vs. PCIT-CIRCLE 5, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blevodafone Idea Limited V. Pcit – Circle 5 {Erstwhile Known As Aditya Birla Telecom Limited} Room No. 515, 5Thfloor Birla Centurion, 10Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. 794, B Wing Mumbai - 400020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg Worli, Mumbai – 400030 Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri J. D. Mistry : Shri Madhur Aggarwal & Shri Ninad Patade Department Represented By : Shri Achal Sharma

…443 ITR 194 (SC) Copy of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. 3 32 to 34 Vahanvati Consultants (P) Ltd. — 138 taxmann.com 52 (SC) Copy of Judgment (Digest) of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 4 35 to 36 Kartikeya V. Sarabhai vs. CIT - 228 ITR 163 (SC) Copy of Judgment (Digest) of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT 5 37 to 39 vs. G. Narasimhan - 236 ITR 327 (SC) Copy of Judgment of Hobble Madras High Court in the case of CGT vs. 6 40 to 43 td.- India co. (P) Ltd. 149 ITR 548 (Madras) Copy of Judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. 7 44 to 48 Kasturi Estate (P). L…