Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 807 - AT - Income TaxIssues Involved: 1. Validity of the authorities' orders. 2. Variation in returned income under "capital gains." 3. Justness and arbitrariness of the impugned order. 4. Detection of undisclosed long-term capital gains. 5. Application of Section 55(2)(aa) and Section 55(2)(b)(i). 6. Applicability of Section 55(2)(b)(i) to bonus shares. 7. Relevance of judicial decisions post-insertion of clause (iiia) in Section 55(2)(aa). 8. Reliance on the decision of the Hyderabad Bench in Shashi Parvatha Reddy. 9. Addressing the prayer for alternate relief under Section 55(2)(ac). Summary: 1. Validity of the authorities' orders: The assessee argued that the authorities' orders are contrary to the express provisions of law and binding precedents. The Tribunal found no merit in this argument and upheld the authorities' orders. 2. Variation in returned income under "capital gains": The authorities varied the returned income under "capital gains" by Rs. 2373,26,55,269/- and computed an income of Rs. 547,62,86,232/- in respect of the transfer of shares. The Tribunal upheld this computation. 3. Justness and arbitrariness of the impugned order: The assessee claimed that the impugned order is unjust, arbitrary, and based on conjectures and surmises. The Tribunal found that the order was based on a correct reading of the legal provisions and upheld it. 4. Detection of undisclosed long-term capital gains: The authorities detected undisclosed long-term capital gains based on an incorrect reading of legal provisions. The Tribunal upheld the authorities' interpretation of the provisions. 5. Application of Section 55(2)(aa) and Section 55(2)(b)(i): The issue was whether the cost of acquisition of bonus shares should be as per Section 55(2)(b)(i) or Section 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia). The Tribunal concluded that Section 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) applies and the cost of acquisition of bonus shares should be taken as "Nil." 6. Applicability of Section 55(2)(b)(i) to bonus shares: The assessee argued that Section 55(2)(b)(i) should apply to bonus shares. The Tribunal found that the specific provision relating to bonus shares under Section 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) prevails over the general provision under Section 55(2)(b)(i). 7. Relevance of judicial decisions post-insertion of clause (iiia) in Section 55(2)(aa): The assessee argued that judicial decisions cited by the authorities hold no relevance post-insertion of clause (iiia) in Section 55(2)(aa). The Tribunal upheld the authorities' reliance on these decisions. 8. Reliance on the decision of the Hyderabad Bench in Shashi Parvatha Reddy: The authorities relied on the decision of the Hyderabad Bench in Shashi Parvatha Reddy to assign a nil value to bonus shares. The Tribunal upheld this reliance. 9. Addressing the prayer for alternate relief under Section 55(2)(ac): The assessee's prayer for alternate relief under Section 55(2)(ac) was not addressed by the authorities. The Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision not to address this prayer. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the authorities' orders, concluding that the cost of acquisition of bonus shares should be taken as "Nil" under Section 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia).
|