9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Counsel Ms.K.G.Usharani For the Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman Mr.S.Sridhar COMMON JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. These tax case appeals filed by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 30.07.2010, passed in I.T.A.No.412/2010, I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Loss, even though the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) disallowing of Short Term Capital Loss on account of call monies paid to KPR Sugar Mills Ltd since it was treated as a sham transaction as the facts of the case fell within the ambit of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MCDOWELLS LIMITED reported in 154 ITR 148?" 3.We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10.90 Crores which arose on account of forfeiture of call monies paid to M/s.KPR Sugar Mills which was promoted by the assessees and other family members. The claim was made relying upon the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of DCIT vs. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. [312 ITR 63]. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of short term capital gains on the ground that the transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his capital. Further, the Tribunal pointed that the forfeiture of capital is not the claim of the revenue that the money is rerouted and has come back into the coffers of the assessees. The money which was invested in M/s.KPR Sugar Mills P. Ltd which was unable to even set up on account of the litigation commenced by the competitor M/s.Renuka Sugars Ltd. who had challenged the license granted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fraudulent transaction or colourable device. 6.We have perused the order passed by the CIT(A) and we find that the CIT(A) has not given any positive finding as to how the transaction to be termed as a colourable device or fraudulent transaction. In fact the order proceeds on surmises and conjunctures and there is no finding to the effect that a colourable device was conceived by the assessee to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
