9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of making or earning income has to be judged in light of the facts of the case available on record, and therefore the Tribunal has come to the conclusion, on facts, that so far as the assessee was concerned it had not made the acquisition for the purpose of obtaining control of the company but was an investment simplicitor. Confirmation of allowing deduction of interest paid on borrowed funds which have been found to have direct nexus with the investment made for acquisition of shares - Decided in favour of assessee - TAX APPEAL NO. 1189 of 2007 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1194 of 2007 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1195 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2016 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the ITAT, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals for consideration of the aforesaid substantial question of law. 5. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in vacating the order of the CIT u/s 263, setting aside the original assessment of the Assessing Officer and thereby coming to the conclusion that the profit on sale of shares by the assessee company amounting to ₹ 2,83,36,750/- earned by the assessee was rightly shown as Long Term Capital Gain. 6. Mr. Manish Shah, learned advocate appearing for the assessee has supported the impugned order and submitted that the Tribunal is ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... succeed, according to Tribunal, in its claim of being a dealer in shares, for the simple reason that the shares were acquired out of the promoters' quota which had a five year lock-in period, and therefore, no dealer would acquire shares which could not be traded in the market for a period of five years. 5 The Tribunal, however, found merit in the alternative contention of the assessee. It has found as a matter of fact that merely because the assessee had acquired shares from the promoters' quota that by itself would not be sufficient to come to the conclusion that the acquisition was for the purpose of having control of the company. That while deciding the case of a shareholder the principal requirement for determining whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
