TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Delhi allows appeal on capital loss disallowance, citing lack of factual basis and genuine transaction</h1> <h3>Shri Ashwani Khurana Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax</h3> Shri Ashwani Khurana Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - TMI Issues: Disallowance of capital loss on sale of shares to wife.In this case, the appellant appealed against the order disallowing a capital loss of Rs. 7,84,979 on the sale of shares to his wife. The Assessing Officer disallowed the loss, considering it a related party transaction where the shares were transferred between family members, leading to an artificial loss. The appellant argued that the sale was genuine, based on the breakup value of shares as per the company's balance sheet. The appellant contended that the sale price was logical as per the financial statements of the company. The appellant also highlighted the lack of dividend declaration by the company and the decrease in net book value of the shares. The CIT(A) rejected the appellant's submission, considering the transaction a sham to book an artificial loss. The CIT(A) found no logic in selling shares to a family member at a loss without a convincing reason. However, the ITAT Delhi disagreed with both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The ITAT noted that the Assessing Officer provided no factual basis for disallowing the loss, while the appellant presented evidence supporting the sale price based on the company's financials. The ITAT found no evidence to support the claim that the sale of shares was a sham transaction. The ITAT concluded that there was no justification for disallowing the capital loss and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the same. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, and the decision was pronounced on 27th September 2013.
TaxTMI 