9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived by them or what had accrued on sale of its shares. The revenue has not in any manner shown that the consideration disclosed by the respondent-assessee to the revenue is not the correct consideration received by them and that the same should be replaced. Moreover, wherever the Parliament thought it fit that the consideration on a transfer of a capital asset has to be ascertained on the basis of market value of the asset transferred specific provision has been made in the Act. To illustrate Section 50C of the Act provides for stamp value duty in case of transfer of land or buildings. Similarly, Section 45(2) and 45(4) of the Act in cases of conversion of the investment into stock in trade or transfer of shares on dissolution of a firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The respondent-assessee firm own 19% shares in a compay namely M/s. Inter Gold (India) Pvt. Ltd. The respondent-assessee sold its 19% shareholdings in M/s. Inter Gold (India) Pvt. Ltd. to one M/s. Rosy Blue (I) (P) Ltd. and returned a capital loss as under: - No. of Shares Cost (Rs.) Index Cost (Rs.) Sale Value (Rs.) Gain/Loss (Rs.) 37612 3,52,29,659 4,55,67,000 3,52,29,659 (1,03,37,341) 1,50,450 11,28,37,500 13,90,90,520 11,28,38,500 (2,62,53,020) Therefore the consideration for the sale of shares in two tranches were ₹ 750/ - per share and R.936/- per share respectively. 4. The Assessing Officer did not accept the capital loss as claimed and sought to substitute the consideration received by the respondent-assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the consideration received on sale of land and buildings by the stamp duty value of land and buildings (immovable property). It further held that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute the consideration shown as received on sale of shares by the respondent-assessee in the absence of bringing evidence on record to indicate that the consideration disclosed on sale of shares was not the complete consideration received and/or accrued to the respondent-assessee. Accordingly the appeal of the respondent-assessee was allowed by an order dated 20th September, 2011. 6. Being aggrieved the Revenue carried this issue in appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order the Tribunal reiterated the findings of fact rendered by the Commissioner of Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration of ₹ 750/- and ₹ 936/- per share received on the sale of the shares by the respondent-assessee was in fact the full consideration which have been disclosed to the revenue. It is not the case of the revenue that the amount disclosed by the respondent asessee was less than what has been received by them or what had accrued on sale of its shares. The revenue has not in any manner shown that the consideration disclosed by the respondent-assessee to the revenue is not the correct consideration received by them and that the same should be replaced. Moreover, wherever the Parliament thought it fit that the consideration on a transfer of a capital asset has to be ascertained on the basis of market value of the asset transfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
