9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961; in short "the Act" respectively. 2. It emerges from a perusal of the case file that the assessee challenges the CIT's order passed in section 263 proceedings directing the Assessing Officer to complete a de-novo assessment after examining the issue of her long term capital gains of Rs. 1,53,10,736/- in the former appeal. The Revenue's case in its appeal pleads that the CIT(A) has erred in treating above stated long term capital gains as exempt in consequential proceedings. 3. We come to the relevant facts first. The assessee-individual filed her return on 31-07-2016 declaring total income of Rs. 18,36,943/-. The same stood processed. The Assessing Officer completed a regular assessment on 25-08/2008 accepting the returned income it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed shares were kept in lock-in-period and whether lock-inperiod of one year was expired on the date of sale of such shares or not. In this connection, the assessee would like to draw Your Goodselfs attention to the letter dated 01/08/2008 addressed to the Id. AO, whereby , the assessee has vide point no. 1 explained that the assessee had acquired 25,000/- Equity Shares of Nagarjuna Construction Company ltd. on 01/12/2004 which were later on converted into 1,25,000 Equity Shares on 29/10/2005 due to splitting of equity shares of Rs. 10/- each into equity shares of Rs. 2/- each and the assessee had sold 56,500 Equity Shares at Rs. 238094 on 08/12/2005 and 27,000 Equity Share at Rs. 239 on 08/12/2005, which resulted into long term capital gain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 263 proceedings is subject matter of challenge in assessee's appeal ITA 1117/Ahd/2011 before us. 6. We come to Revenue's appeal ITA 1418/Ahd/2012 now. The Assessing Officer in his consequential order in pursuance to CIT's direction hereinabove added long term capital gains amount in question of Rs. 1,53,10,736/-. The CIT(A) accepts assessee's arguments in the lower appellate order as follows:- "2.3 I have considered the facts of the case; assessment order and appellant's written submission. CIT directed the AO by order under section 263 to examine the nature of shares allotted to her by Nagarjuna construction Ltd and to see whether sale of such shares are eligible for deduction under section 10(38). From the facts and documents sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption to the assesse is wrong, therefore it is held that appellant is entitled to claim exemption under section 10 (38) since what was sold was Equity shares of Nagarjuna construction Ltd. Accordingly the addition made by the assessing officer is deleted." This leaves the Revenue aggrieved. 7. We have heard rival contentions. The sole issue between the parties in these two appeals is about assessee's treatment of shares purchased in M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company and the aspect of holding period thereof. It eminates from the case file that a coordinate bench in ITA No. 3115/Ahd/2009 DCIT vs. Aditi J. Vyas (supra) has decided the very issue in assessee's favour as under:- "7. We have heard both the sides. We have carefully peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Circular of CBDT No.704 dated 28/04/1995, when a question was raised as regards to the date of transfer and about the day from which the holding period of the securities should reckoned. The Board has given the instruction as follows, only relevant portion; reproduced. "..... 2. When the securities are transacted through stock exchanges; it is the established procedure that the brokers first enter into contracts for purchase/sale of securities and thereafter, follow it up with delivery of shares, accompanied by transfer deeds duly signed by the registered holders. The seller is entitled to receive the consideration agreed to as on the date of contract. The Board are of the opinion that it is the date of broker's note that should be tre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arising from the transfer of long-term capital asset, being an equity share in a company where the transaction of sale of such equity share come into force and such transaction is chargeable to securities transaction tax. All these provisions thus demonstrate that the period of holding should be reckoned form the date of allotment of such asset. We, therefore, conclude that the date of allotment is the date of acquisition and not the date on which credited to Demat account. The view taken by the Learned CIT(Appeals) is hereby upheld and grounds of the Revenue are dismissed." The ld. co-ordinate bench accordingly holds that date of allotment is the date of acquisition of the shares in question and not date on which the same were credited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
