9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the justification offered by the assessee or to substantiate his doubts. A mere suspicion, however strong it might appear, cannot take the form of a substantiated opinion sans supporting materials and hence it cannot form the basis for rejection of the claim. Further more, the question of valuation in itself, is a pure question of fact particularly, when the same has been concurrently accepted by both the lower appellate authorities. No perversity has been either alleged or made out at any stage in appeal. We agree with the conclusions of the ITAT and are of the view that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration. - Decided in favour of the assessee. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1421 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 15-11-2016 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he regular accounts on accrual basis and therefore were not includible in the taxable business income, ignoring the special provisions contained in Section 43 D of the Income Tax Act and Rules made thereunder, specifying the classes of assessees and categories of bad and doubtful debts in respect of which such exclusion could be made? 4. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the dis-allowance of Long Term Capital Loss of ₹ 3,98,07,218/- on account of sale of shares to a sister concern without applying the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Aishini Least Finance P. Ltd., (309 I.T.R. 320)? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of ₹ 3.98 crores (Rs.2.88 + 1.10 crores). 5. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Authority raised a query on the allowance of capital loss on the sale of shares, specifically on the valuation adopted. The justification provided by the assessee in respect thereof reads thus:- The company is a manufacturer of Automobile components. We had acquired 10 lakhs shares in this company at a cost of ₹ 100 lakhs in the year ended 30.03.99. The company had been incurring losses every year and had not declared any dividend since its inception in 1996. The accumulated debit balance in Profit Loss Account as on 31.03.04 amounted to ₹ 594 lakhs against the share capital of ₹ 1288 lakhs. There was no return for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d dividend since inception. Thus, though the equity shares of one of the companies were listed in the Madras and Ahmedabad Stock Exchanges, there had been no transactions in the said stock exchanges since April 2002 and hence there is no market for the shares. The shares were thus valued nominally for a price of Re.1/- per share. The Assessing Authority did not dispute the factum of sale. The only query raised at the stage of assessment was in regard to the value adopted, at a figure of Re.1/-, as against the face value of ₹ 10/- per share. He, thus, rejected the claim of long term capital loss, not permitting the assessee to carry forward and set off the same in future. 7. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee or to substantiate his doubts. A mere suspicion, however strong it might appear, cannot take the form of a substantiated opinion sans supporting materials and hence it cannot form the basis for rejection of the claim. 9. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Department relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos.3343 and 3344 of 2008, dated 06.05.2008, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ashini Lease Finance (P) Ltd., in support of his contention. On a perusal thereof, we find that the facts are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The assessee, in that case, borrowed funds from its sister concerns, which were deployed towards purchase of equity shares in a company called AEC Ltd. Ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
