9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of various professional and legal expenses u/s 48(i) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Charging of interest u/s 234C. 3. Determination of whether the transaction was a family settlement exempt from capital gains tax. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Deduction of Various Professional and Legal Expenses u/s 48(i) The assessee claimed deductions for various expenses incurred in connection with the transfer of shares, which were partly allowed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal examined the allowability of these expenses under section 48(i) of the Income Tax Act, which permits deduction of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of a capital asset. - Payment to M/s. S.R. Halbe & Associates: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction of Rs. 3,13,200/- for reimbursement of travel, lodging, and boarding expenses, as these were incidental to the proceedings before the CLB and directly connected with the transfer of shares. - Payment to M/s. Churu Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Rabo India Securities Pvt. Ltd.: The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 8.5 crores paid to M/s. Churu Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., recognizing their role in strategizing to enhance the value of shares before their transfer. However, the payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rabo India Securities Pvt. Ltd. was not allowed, as their involvement was limited and not directly connected to the transfer of shares. - Payment to Mrs. Bina Gupta, Advocate: The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 8,75,000/- for services rendered in connection with the transfer of shares but disallowed Rs. 6,65,000/- incurred in the initial stages of the CLB proceedings, as these were not directly related to the transfer. - Payment to Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Advocate: The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/- as his services were directly connected with the transfer of shares. - Payment to Mr. Dayal Saran, Advocate: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction of Rs. 5,00,000/- for consultation services directly related to the transfer of shares. Issue 2: Charging of Interest u/s 234C The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal against the charging of interest u/s 234C, citing the mandatory nature of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C as upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Karanvir Singh Gossal vs. CIT. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the delay in paying advance tax. Issue 3: Determination of Family Settlement The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's claim that the transaction was a family settlement exempt from capital gains tax. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had voluntarily declared the capital gain and paid taxes, and the final order of the CLB was not for a family settlement but for resolving a business dispute between two groups. Conclusion: - Revenue's Appeals (ITA Nos. 405, 404, 406, 407 & 466/Agr/2011): Dismissed. - Assessee's Appeals (ITA Nos. 348 & 349/Agr/2011): Partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
|
