9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 9988. As significant to note that the face value of the share has remained same at Rs. 10/- even after the reduction. AO s view that the voting power has not changed as the percentage of assessee s share of 99.88% has remained unchanged is untenable because if the shares are transferred at face value, the redeemable value would be Rs. 99,880/- whereas the value of 14,95,44,130 number of shares would have been Rs. 1,49,54,41,300/-. ITAT has rightly followed authority in Karthikeya V.Sarabhai [ 1997 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] with regard to meaning of transfer by holding that there was no transfer within the meaning of that expression contained in Section 2(47) - Decided in favour of the assessee. - The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Dinesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reduction of the share. Assessee claimed loss of Rs. 1,64,48,55,840/-. The AO [Assessing Officer] disallowed the same holding that though the number of shares was reduced, share holding pattern had remained the same and assessee had continued to hold 99.88% shares. The CIT(A) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)] confirmed AO s order and the ITAT has reversed CIT(A) s order and allowed the assessee s appeal. 5. Shri E.I.Sanmathi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue urged following contentions; that there is no effective transfer of shares and transaction did not resulted in relinquishment of rights; and that assessee had retained 99.88% of the share. Thus, there was no change in percentage of share holding pattern and the voting pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... face value of the share has remained same at Rs. 10/- even after the reduction. The AO s view that the voting power has not changed as the percentage of assessee s share of 99.88% has remained unchanged is untenable because if the shares are transferred at face value, the redeemable value would be Rs. 99,880/- whereas the value of 14,95,44,130 number of shares would have been Rs. 1,49,54,41,300/-. In our considered view, the ITAT has rightly followed authority in Karthikeya V.Sarabhai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax [1998 2 ITR 163 SC] with regard to meaning of transfer by holding that there was no transfer within the meaning of that expression contained in Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ The Act for short] . 9. In view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
