Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (4) TMI 153 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:

1. Allowance of short-term capital loss on the sale of shares.
2. Allegation of using a colorable device for tax evasion.

Summary:

Allowance of Short-term Capital Loss on the Sale of Shares:

The Revenue challenged the order allowing the assessee a short-term capital loss of Rs. 23,44,27,385 on the sale of shares of M/s I Dream Production Pvt. Ltd. The assessee, holding 99.99% shares of the company, sold these shares at Rs. 0.21 per share, incurring a substantial loss. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the loss, arguing that the investment in a loss-making company at a high premium was a colorable device to evade taxes. The AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 24,87,91,087, ignoring the claimed short-term capital loss.

Commercial Justification and Rejection of Colorable Device Allegation:

The learned CIT(A) found commercial justification in the assessee's actions, noting that the infusion of capital was necessary to discharge the company's liabilities, including significant bank loans. The CIT(A) emphasized that no one would incur a loss of Rs. 23.5 crore merely to save Rs. 5.2 crore in taxes. The CIT(A) also highlighted that the company's financials improved significantly due to the capital infusion, and the losses were genuine and not manipulated. The CIT(A) disagreed with the AO's application of the McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer case, stating that the losses were actual and not artificial.

Tribunal's Findings and Dismissal of Revenue's Appeal:

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's investment was necessary to honor business commitments and improve the company's financial standing. The Tribunal found no evidence of manipulation or colorable device, as the transactions were genuine and the sale price of shares was not disputed by the Revenue. The Tribunal referenced relevant case laws supporting the assessee's position, including ACIT vs Biraj Investment Pvt. Ltd., and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

Conclusion:

The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the allowance of the short-term capital loss on the sale of shares was upheld. The Tribunal found the assessee's actions commercially justified and rejected the allegation of using a colorable device for tax evasion.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates