Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: form 3cd :: VAT RATES :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT Audit :: due date for vat payment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: empanelment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi-I Vs. M/s Stainless Investment Ltd.
December, 18th 2015
           THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                     Judgment delivered on: 19.11.2015
+       ITA 305/2002
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I                      ..... Appellant
                          versus
M/S STAINLESS INVESTMENT LTD.                           ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant    : Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel
                       with Mr Raghvendra Singh and Mr Shikhar
                       Garg.
For the Respondent   : Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms.
                       Kavita Jha.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
                               JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1.      The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the `Act') impugning an order dated 14th March,

2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter `ITAT') in

ITA No. 5306/Del/95. The said appeal (being ITA No. 5306/Del/95) was

filed by the Revenue against an order dated 15th March, 1995 passed by the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter 'CIT(A)'] in Appeal

No.284/93-94 whereby the CIT(A) allowed the Assessee's appeal directed

against the assessment order dated 28th July, 1993 passed by the Assessing




ITA 305/2002                                                   Page 1 of 5
Officer in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 1990-91.

2.       The Appeal was admitted on 12th October, 2004 and the following

questions of law were framed:-

           "1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
           holding that the sale consideration received by the assessee
           by transfer of shares and sale of rights entitlement of Partly
           Convertible Debentures (PCDs) is income from capital gains
           and not income from business?
           2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
           holding that the assessee had incurred loss on sale of its
           entitlement to acquire partly convertible debentures and the
           assessee is entitled to set off the alleged loss from the capital
           gains/income earned by the assessee?"




3.       However in the facts of the present case, the first question does not

arise. Further the reference to partly convertible debentures in the second

question may be read as fully convertible debentures.

4.      Briefly stated the relevant facts necessary to address the aforesaid

question are as under:-

4.1     The Assessee company is an investment company belonging to the

Jindal Group of companies. Jindal Group is mainly engaged in the

manufacturing and production of ferrous metals and alloys. Jindal Group

includes investment companies ­ such as the Assessee ­ which, inter alia,

hold and transact in shares of the operational companies of the Group.



ITA 305/2002                                                         Page 2 of 5
4.2     The Assessee filed its return of income on 28 th December, 1990

declaring an income of Rs.75,510/-. In the computation of income, the

Assessee had claimed a loss of Rs.40,22,350/-. The return was picked up

for scrutiny and the AO passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of

the Act on 10th June, 1992. The said assessment was set aside by CIT(A) by

an order dated 2nd February, 1993. Thereafter, a notice under Section

143(2) of the Act was issued to the Assessee and a fresh assessment order

dated 28th July, 1993 was passed by the AO.

4.3     As on 1st April, 1989, the Assessee held 1,94,000 equity shares of

Jindal Strips Limited (hereafter `JSL'). JSL floated rights issue of fully

convertible debentures (FCDs) of Rs.140/- each. In terms of the said issue,

every shareholder would be entitled to subscribe to FCDs in the ratio of 2:1,

that is, 1 FCD for every 2 equity shares held by the shareholders.

Accordingly, the Assessee was offered 97,000 FCDs. Out of the aforesaid

entitlement, the Assessee renounced rights to subscribe to 35,000 FCDs in

favour of M/s Saw Pipes Ltd. (another company of the Jindal Group) at

Rs.12/- per FCD, that is, at an aggregate consideration of Rs.4,20,000/-.

4.4     The Assessee claimed that the cum-right price of an equity share of

JSL was Rs.270/- as on 27th October, 1989 and the said share was quoted



ITA 305/2002                                                     Page 3 of 5
ex-rights at Rs.208/-. The Assessee claimed that the cost of rights to

subscribe to 35,000 FCDs was Rs.43,40,000/- (i.e. Rs.62 per share x 70,000

shares). Accordingly, the Assessee claimed that it had incurred a loss of

Rs.39,20,000/- (Rs.43,40,000/- ­ Rs.4,20,000/-).

4.5     The AO noticed that the shares of JSL were held as closing stock

and, accordingly, disallowed the notional cost of acquisition claimed by the

Assessee. The Assessee held that any diminution in the value of stock of

JSL ­ the basis on which the cost of acquisition of rights was claimed ­

would be reflected in the valuation of the closing stock of JSL. He also

observed that the closing stock was valued at price of Rs.10.38/- per share

against the market value of Rs.118/- per share and, thus, any loss claimed

by the Assessee was only notional.

4.6     The Assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against the said assessment

order (being Appeal No. 294/93-94). The CIT(A) allowed the aforesaid

appeal and held that the loss claimed by the Assessee was allowable in

terms of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. K.A. Patch:

(1971) 81 ITR 413 (Bom).

5.      The Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITAT, which was

rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.






ITA 305/2002                                                    Page 4 of 5
6.      The present appeal was heard alongwith Commissioner of Income

Tax Delhi-I v. M/s Abhinandan Investment Ltd.: ITA No.130/2001 and

the questions of law framed in present appeal and in ITA 130/2001 are also

common. Further, the learned counsel for the parties contended that the

material facts and issues in the present appeal were similar to the issues

involved in ITA 130/2001 and a decision in ITA 130/2001 would also be

determinative of the question in the present appeal.

7.       Thus, in view of our decision in Commissioner of Income Tax

Delhi-I v. M/s Abhinandan Investment Ltd.: ITA 130/2001 delivered

today, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against

the Assessee.

8.      The appeal is allowed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.




                                                       VIBHU BAKHRU, J




                                                       S. MURALIDHAR, J
NOVEMBER 19, 2015
RK




ITA 305/2002                                                       Page 5 of 5

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Multimedia Presentations Multimedia Solutions 3D Solutions Corporate Presentations Business Presentations Multimedia Presentation India M

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions