9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant itself, which has led the authority below to proceed and pass an order now under challenge. Present appellant has tried to rely upon the decision delivered by the Hon ble Apex Court in B.C.Srinivasa case 1981 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT there was a reference with regard to a goodwill, which was a selfgenerating asset as distinct from the detachable warrant. Hence, the said issue also having been examined by the learned Tribunal before passing the order. We see no error committed by the Tribunal. Conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal as also by the C.I.T. (Appeals) do not require any interference. Undisputedly, according to the appellant itself some value has to be ascribed to the detachable warrants and when such cost was accepted rather agreed to an extent of Rs. 2.175/- which led the C.I.T. (Appeals) to pass the order has been rightly affirmed by the Tribunal - substantial question of law in favour of revenue against assessee. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1653 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 12-1-2023 - HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI MR MANISH J SHAH(1320) FOR THE APPELLANT(S) NO. 1 MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be taxed as a long term capital gain without appellant being entitled to any deduction by way of cost or expense therefrom and the stand of the appellant came to be rejected relying upon the decision of Tribunal in ITA No.458/Ahd/1993, which is pending in reference before the High Court being I.T.R. No.66 of 1998 and as such, held that valuation of cost of this detachable warrant must be Rs.2.175/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid view, the appellant approached the Tribunal against the decision of C.I.T. (Appeals) and the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 09.04.2007 was pleased to partly allow the appeal but the view of the C.I.T. (Appeals) was affirmed and it is against this order of the Tribunal, dated 09.04.2007, which was received by the appellant on 22.08.2007, the appellant has preferred present Tax Appeal under Section 260A of IT Act by raising brief contentions. 5. The appeal was entertained by the previous Co-ordinate Bench on 18.01.2008 and appeal was admitted on following question :- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the detachable warrants attached with Part 'C' of debentures of Deepak Fertil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 294] and appellant s own case of the recent past and after examining the same has held that part of the cost is attributable to the detachable warrant, which was ascertained at Rs.2.175/- and as such, the Assessing Officer was rightly directed to recalculate the capital gain after considering the said figure and said view of C.I.T. (Appeals) having been rightly examined by the learned Tribunal, there appears to be no error. In fact, the background of facts would indicate that question, which has been formulated by the Co-ordinate Bench at the time of admission, deserves to be answered in favour of revenue. 9. To support his submission, learned advocate Mr. Hirak Shah has relied upon the decision delivered by the Calcutta High Court reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 110 (Calcutta) and has submitted that stand of the appellant does not deserve to be entertained. Hence, he has requested the Court to dismiss the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective sides and having gone through the material on record and having examined the order passed by the learned Tribunal, as also of C.I.T. (Appeals) the question before us is whether detachable warrant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention was raised whether detachable warrant had any cost or not, but that appears to be not the controversy between the parties and as such, the High Court felt that it was not sufficient for the Tribunal to embark upon such an exercise in the absence of any controversy being raised. Hence, the said judgment when taken in its entirety, especially paragraphs 7 and 8 and the observations contained therein would indicate that decision would not be of any assistance to the appellant and principles enunciated therein cannot be applied as a straight-jacket formula by divorcing the facts. 13. In addition to this, yet another decision, which has been relied upon of Bombay High Court reported in [2012] 346 ITR 1 (Bom), on close perusal would indicate that issue was about sale of tradable warrants whether taxable or not and the asset transfer had no cost of acquisition. However, perusal of paragraph 4 would clearly indicate that said judgment is also of no assistance since the assessment year here involved in the instant case is 1993-94 and as such, we are of the opinion that decision cited was relating to effect of amendment and it is of no assistance to the appellant in the instant ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
