Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (9) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessment proceedings (cost of acquisition claimed in the return of income was Rs. 128.39/- as against Rs. 184.09/- claimed in the revised computation filed before the AO). Similar claim was made before the CIT(A). CIT(A) rejected the claim by placing reliance on the judgment of Goetze (India) Ltd. [ 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] As in case of Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Ltd. [ 2021 (3) TMI 694 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] after considering the judgment of Goetze (India) Ltd., [ 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] held that when assessee makes a fresh claim before the appellate authority, even if the same is not claimed in the original return of income or in the revised return of income, the CIT(A) is empowered to consider the fres .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed in the revised computation filed under the facts circumstances of the case. (b) The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that the appellant did not consider Rs. 56/- being exercise price per share in the return of income filed by oversight and the assessing officer ought not to have taken advantage of the error committed by the appellant under the facts circumstances of the case. (c) The assessing officer ought to have assisted the appellant in computing the correct total income collected only legitimate taxes in consonance with Article 265 of the Constitution of India under the facts circumstances of the case. 3 (a) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant could not file the revised return of income during th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.09.2019. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had submitted that while arriving at the value of capital gains, the cost of acquisition of shares was taken at lower value in the return of income which led to the capital gains on higher side. The assessee claimed in the return of income that cost of acquisition of shares was wrongly taken at Rs. 128.39 per share as against the correct value of Rs. 184.09 per share. The assessee submitted revised computation of capital gain during the course of assessment proceedings (on 25.01.2021). The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) PCIT vs. Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Ltd. reported in 128 taxmann.com 1 ii) FNF India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 133 taxmann.com 251 iii) Hirsh Bracelet India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 109 taxmann.com 50 6. The learned DR supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is admitted position that assessee had claimed higher cost of acquisition of shares during the course of assessment proceedings (cost of acquisition claimed in the return of income was Rs. 128.39/- as against Rs. 184.09/- claimed in the revised computation filed before the AO). Similar claim was made before the CIT(A). However, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... id decision the Supreme Court has not held anything contrary to what was held in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) and has reaffirmed the legal position that even if the claim is not made before the Assessing Officer, it can be made before the Appellate Authorities and jurisdiction of the Appellate Authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negatived in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra). A division bench of Delhi High Court in Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra) has held that there was no prohibition on the powers of tribunal to entertain an additional ground, which according to the tribunal arises in the matter and is necessary for just decision of the case. 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled principles, the facts of the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates