9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,57,076 made by the Assessing Officer on account of transfer of shares made by the assessee to Vishwa Mangal Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., at rates lower than the quoted market rates on the date of transfer?" The assessee is a resident individual and the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter the transfer of the aforesaid shares of the Birla group of companies in favour of the abovenamed Vishwa Mangal Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1,33,410 shares of Rs. 10 each valued at Rs. 13,34,100 in the abovenamed Vishwa Mangal Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. The assessee, therefore, as on that date was not holding any shares in the Birla group of companies. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee regarding the transfer of shares and added the difference between the amount of Rs. 13,34,392 and Rs. 20,67,876 and thus held that the assessee had earned an income of Rs. 7,57,382. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who after considering the facts and circumstances of the case reversed the order of the Assessing Officer being of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred those shares at the book value cost maintained by her. It is also not disputed that the book value cost was lower than the market value of the shares. In fact it is admitted that the market value of those shares was to the tune of Rs. 20,67,876. Under those circumstances, holding that the assessee had derived any income, being the difference between the market value and the price on which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee indulged in such a practice. We are fortified in our view by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd., [1986] 159 ITR 71 (SC). We also find support in our view from a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of India Finance and Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. B. N. Panda, Dy. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 710. For the reasons above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
