9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see to one Ramesh Sukharam Vaidya for consideration of ₹ 45,00,000/- merely because it was made in the normal course of business, it cannot be termed as anything but long term investment - since the Assessee was relying on Camelot for manufacturing of tooth brushes to be traded by the assessee, the investment is nothing but a measure of commercial expediency to further business objectives and primarily related to the business operations of the Assessee - at no point of time the investment in Camelot was made with an intention to realize any enhancement value thereof or to earn dividend income - the investment was made to separately house the integral part of the business activity – thus, the loss of ₹ 5.50 crores is a business l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 234D was brought into the statute book with effect from 01-06-2003. 3. The question 5.2 above has been concluded by judgment and order passed by this Court in a batch of Appeals, Income Tax Appeal No.450 of 2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax-8 v/s. M/s. Sulzer India Limited) and other connected matters decided on 5 December 2014. The question stands answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee in terms of this judgment, as fairly conceded before us. 4. So far as the question 5.3 is concerned, it stands answered in terms of the judgment dated 12 December 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No.2012 of 2011 (Commissioner of Income Tax-10 v/s. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The question of law, which is identical to the one framed at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... namely the Assessee. Shares purchased of Camelot were also sold by the Assessee to one Ramesh Sukharam Vaidya for consideration of ₹ 45,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer held that the sum of ₹ 5,50,00,000/- which was invested by the Assessee in the equity of Camelot on 17 March 2003 and which have been used to repay the loan to the Assessee company, amounting to ₹ 5.5 crores, before 1 March 2003 would demonstrate that the purpose of investment was to give a Long Term Enduring Benefit to the Assessee. Merely because it was made in the normal course of business, it cannot be termed as anything but long term investment. This conclusion of the Assessing Officer was challenged in the Appeal before the First Appellate Authority a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
