9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April 1, 1976 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the original return had been set aside to be completed de novo, as per the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the revised return filed by the assessee in the course of the reassessment was bad in law ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction of the enhanced municipal tax with effect from the fourth quarter of 1966-67 ?" No one appeared in support of this reference on behalf of the assessee. We, therefore, decline to answer these questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 51 per cent. of the voting power on the last day of the previous year were not beneficially held by persons who held it on the last day of the previous years, corresponding to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 when losses were incurred. The Income-tax Officer also stated in the assessment order that the assessee had not furnished any evidence to justify the claim that the change in shareholding was not effected with view to avoid or reduce liability to tax. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), having observed that the Income-tax Officer had not made out any case at all for invoking the provisions of section 79(b) against the assessee and not discharging the onus that the change in shareholding was effected with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany carrying not less than fifty-one per cent. of the voting power were beneficially held by persons who beneficially held shares of the company carrying not less than fifty-one per cent. of the voting power on the last day of the year or years in which the loss was incurred ; or (b) the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that the change in the shareholding was not effected with a view to avoiding or reducing any liability to tax. From a plain reading of this section, it is clear that, in order to reject the assessee's claim to the benefit of carry-forward and set-off of earlier years' losses, the Income-tax Officer must be satisfied that the assessee entered into a transaction for the purpose of avoidance of or reduction in liability to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ially interested. Formerly, Metro Goldwin Mayer Inc. was the holding company of the assessee-company. On May 1, 1972, the entire shareholding of this company was purchased by Tramarsa SA. incorporated in Switzerland. The shares of the company carrying 51% of the voting power on the last day of the previous year were not beneficially held by persons who held it on the last day of the previous year corresponding to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 when losses were incurred. So, under section 79(a), no loss for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 shall be carried forward and set off. Section 79(b) is not applicable as the assessee failed to furnish evidence to justify its claim that the change in shareholding was not effected with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
