9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter was, therefore, remanded back to the AO - subsequently ITAT directed the AO to allow the carry forward of business loss to subsequent years. HELD THAT:- As we find that the fall in the value has been worked out based on the market quotation in Ludhiana Stock Exchange, wherein prior to the right issue on 13.10.1992, last-cum-right price of the shares were Rs. 610/- per share and the first Ex.-right price of the share on 11.11.1992 was Rs. 400/- per share, resulting in fall in the price of the share by Rs. 210/- per share. This aspect has not been disputed by the revenue. We further find that the judgments passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Miss Dhun Dadabhoi Kapadia [ 1966 (10) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT ] and Bombay High Court in K.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.75,936/- from share of income from M/s Adinath Syndicate. Thus, total loss amounting to Rs. 2,04,41,885/- was claimed to be carried forward to the next year under the head capital gain . 4. The Assessing Officer during re-assessment proceedings referred to the assessment order of 1995-1996, wherein it was held to be only a notional loss and disallowed the claim of the assessee for carry forward of capital loss of Rs. 2,04,41,885/-. The CIT (Appeals), ultimately allowed the short term capital loss of Rs. 9,87,485/- and also the claim of the loss relating to the fall of value in the shares and thus vide its order dated 03.03.2003 set aside the order of the AO. 5. The order of CIT (Appeals) was taken before the Tribunal who vide its order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oked at in this manner also, it is clear that the net capital gain by her would be represented by the amount realised by her on transferring the right to receive new shares, after deducting therefrom the amount of depreciation in the value of her original shares 9. It also relied on the case of CIT vs. K.A. Patch (1971) 81 ITR 413 (Bombay), wherein, it was held as under:- We had pointed out to Mr. Joshi that the facts of our case were not only similar, but identical, to those before the Supreme Court in Dhun Kapadia's case. Mr. Joshi made various attempts to distinguish our case from the case of Dhun Kapadia; but, in our opinion, he could not point out any effective distinction: One of the distinctions he sought to make was that Dhun Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
