9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I] by following the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Before us, no distinguishing feature in the facts in the year under consideration and that of earlier years has been pointed out by the Revenue. Further no material has been placed by Revenue to demonstrate that the decision rendered by Hon ble Delhi High Court in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 has been stayed/ set aside/ overruled by higher judicial forum. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) [ 2021 (9) TMI 1530 - ITAT DELHI] and thus the grounds of Revenue are dismissed. - Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member For the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transfer of compulsorily convertible Debentures (CCDs) to M/s. Vatika Ltd. is in the nature of capital gains and not in the nature of interest income as held by the Assessing Officer on the basis of Advance Ruling dated 21.03.2012 in AAR No.1048 of 2011 pronounced by the Hon ble Authority for Advance Ruling. 2. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the gainss arising to the assessee on the transfer on Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCDs) to M/s. Vatika Ltd. is in the nature of capital gainss and shall not be taxable in India under Article 11 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Mauritius. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of CCDs to be taxable. He also noted that the issue had not attained the finality as the matter was pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court but to protect the interest of Revenue and to maintain the consistency with the decision taken in earlier years in assessee s own case, he considered the gains on sale of CCDs to be taxable. He accordingly considered the income arising on transfer of CCDs at Rs.4,75,97,440/- as taxable. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who noted that for A.Y. 2011-12, assessee had sought ruling on the taxability of capital gains arising on sale of CCDs before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR). The AAR decided the issue against the assessee and held that the gain from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11-12, the Hon ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 30.07.2014 has held that the gain on CCDs to be treated as capital gains. We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.414/Del/2018 order dated 08.09.2021 by following the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Before us, no distinguishing feature in the facts in the year under consideration and that of earlier years has been pointed out by the Revenue. Further no material has been placed by Revenue to demonstrate that the decision rendered by Hon ble Delhi High Court in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 has been stayed/ set aside/ overruled by higher judicial forum. Considering the totality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
