9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ils furnished before the CIT(A) were not properly gone through by him and he has not passed any comments on that - assessee also filed certain additional evidences and submitted that these evidences go to the root of the matter of the issue in hand. In the interest of justice we admit the additional evidences and restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to adjudicate the issue relating to allowability of deduction of such traveling and litigation expenses from the long term capital gain earned by the assessee. AO shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with the law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and transferred by it and claimed against income chargeable under the head Capital Gains as not acceptable and hence not allowable. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and derives income from sale and purchase of shares. It filed its return of income on 30th March, 2011 declaring the total income at ₹ 6,37,34,020/-. The AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, noted that the assessee has shown income from long term capital gain amounting to ₹ 12,92,42,065/- and has claimed deduction under section 54EC of ₹ 50 lacs. According to the AO, the duration of holding of such shares was less than 12 months and, therefore, it was short-term capital gain and, consequently, the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act, but, denied the claim of the assessee merely on the ground that such claim remained unsubstantiated. He submitted that the CIT(A) during the course of appeal proceedings only directed the assessee to submit documentary evidences in support of transfer related expenses. The various documents furnished by the assessee were not at all considered or even acknowledged by the CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed certain evidences in shape of additional evidence and submitted that these evidences go to the root of the matter and should be admitted for adjudicating the issue. He submitted that he has no objection if the same is restored to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the various evidences subsequently filed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hares as long term capital gain. Therefore, now the only question that remains to be adjudicated is as to whether the various expenses claimed by the assessee on account of travel and litigation expenses to the tune of ₹ 1,69,18,142/- incurred during the financial year 2009-10 is an allowable expenses under section 48(1) to be claimed as deduction from such long term capital gain. As stated earlier, the AO had not adjudicated this issue since he treated the capital gain as short term capital gain. We find the CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate its claim that the travel and litigation expenses should be deducted for computing long term capital gain. It is the submission of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Exports Private Limited at the price of ₹ 10/- per share which are purchased by the company @ ₹ 100/- per share in the financial year 2001-02. According to AO, the assessee company was conscious of the capital gain being earned on sale of shares, therefore, the preference shares of Fiza Rozil Exports Private Limited were sold at a nominal price of ₹ 10/- each. He, therefore, held that sale of shares was a sham transaction and there was no real transaction. According to the AO, the investment in shares of Fiza Rozil Exports Private Limited and its subsequent sale were only seen as a vehicle for booking losses adopted by the assessee. Relying on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Killick Nixon Limited v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsaction at all. He submitted that the assessee company was expecting relief from the RBI. Further, the various evidences were not at all considered by the lower authorities. He accordingly submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO with the direction to adjudicate the issue afresh in the light of the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. 13. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee was fully aware of the long-term capital gain and to set off the same, he entered into a sham transaction by selling the shares at very low price and claimed huge loss. He submitted that the order of the CIT(A) under the facts and circumstances is fully justified an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
