9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted out that with no significant event having taken place, except redemption of the 2 per cent. RCPS, there was no basis for the Assessing Officer to have concluded that the entire transaction to be bogus. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal further noted that the Assessing Officer called for information from JPL under section 133(6) of the Act but was unable to find any material to conclude that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case was picked up for scrutiny. In the assessment year in question, the assessee which is a non-banking finance company ( NBFC ) engaged in the business of investments, trading of goods, loans and advances, claimed carry forward of a long-term capital loss of ₹ 41,81,03,448 on account of sale of 2 per cent. Redeemable Convertible Preference Shares ( RCPS ) of Jindal Polyfilms Ltd. ( JPL ), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resultant loss after taxation was claimed as long-term capital loss. 4. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has in the impugned order reversed finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) on this aspect and held that for the assessment year 2001-02 when the loan was converted into OCPS, such conversion was not held to be a bogus or sham transaction. In the return for the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om JPL under section 133(6) of the Act but was unable to find any material to conclude that the transaction between the respondent-assessee and the JPL was bogus. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the Revenue and having perused the orders of the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the court finds that the Income-tax App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
