Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2006 (1) TMI 466 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Revenue appeal dismissed, CIT(A)'s method upheld at Rs. 165/share for capital gains calculation. (A) The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed without prejudice. The CIT(A)'s order was ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Revenue appeal dismissed, CIT(A)'s method upheld at Rs. 165/share for capital gains calculation. (A)

                          The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed without prejudice. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld, adopting the yield method and quantifying the market value of Marico shares at Rs. 165 per share for computing long-term capital gains. The CIT(A)'s well-reasoned findings were entirely agreed upon, and the directions for recomputing the capital gains were affirmed.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Methodology for determining the market value of unquoted shares.
                          2. Direction to tax short-term capital gain in the correct assessment year.
                          3. Justification for reopening the assessment.
                          4. Adoption of the yield method for market value determination.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Methodology for Determining the Market Value of Unquoted Shares:
                          The primary issue was the methodology employed for determining the market value of unquoted shares of Marico Industries Ltd. (Marico) received by the assessee-trust from Harsh Archana Trading and Investments Ltd. (Harsh Archana) upon its liquidation. The Assessing Officer (AO) used the break-up method based on Rule 11 of Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act, which was contested by the assessee. The assessee adopted Rs. 165 per share based on the offer price in Marico's public issue in March 1996.

                          The CIT(A) rejected the AO's approach, stating that the break-up value method was inappropriate for a going-concern like Marico and that the yield method was more suitable. This decision was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan, which emphasized the yield method for valuing shares of a going-concern. The CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt Rs. 165 per share as the market value, aligning with the assessee's valuation.

                          2. Direction to Tax Short-Term Capital Gain in the Correct Assessment Year:
                          The AO initially assessed the short-term capital gain in the assessment year 1996-97, which was contested by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) directed the AO to tax the short-term capital gain in the assessment year 1997-98 if a higher authority decided so. This direction was based on the timing of the public issue and the receipt of sale proceeds.

                          3. Justification for Reopening the Assessment:
                          The AO reopened the assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the grounds of under-assessment and escapement of revenue. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening, rejecting the assessee's contention against it. The reassessment resulted in a revised total income, incorporating both long-term and short-term capital gains.

                          4. Adoption of the Yield Method for Market Value Determination:
                          The CIT(A) emphasized that the yield method, rather than the break-up method, should be used for determining the market value of Marico shares. This approach was supported by the Supreme Court's rulings in CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan and CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia, which highlighted the yield method for valuing shares of a going-concern. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's valuation of Rs. 165 per share, aligning with the yield method.

                          The CIT(A) also noted that adopting a higher value of Rs. 187 per share, as suggested by the assessee's report, would unintentionally benefit the assessee and reduce the overall tax liability. Therefore, the CIT(A) maintained the valuation at Rs. 165 per share for computing long-term capital gains under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

                          Conclusion:
                          The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed without prejudice. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld, adopting the yield method and quantifying the market value of Marico shares at Rs. 165 per share for computing long-term capital gains. The CIT(A)'s well-reasoned findings were entirely agreed upon, and the directions for recomputing the capital gains were affirmed.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found