Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        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

        Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision, rejects Revenue's appeal on share purchase price substitution

        ACIT-19 (2), Mumbai Office of the ACIT-19 (2), Mumbai Versus Smt. Padmini Somani

        ACIT-19 (2), Mumbai Office of the ACIT-19 (2), Mumbai Versus Smt. Padmini Somani - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Recalculation of the purchase price of shares and disallowance of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL).
        2. Justification of the assessee's investment and the genuineness of the losses.

        Detailed Analysis:

        Issue 1: Recalculation of the Purchase Price of Shares and Disallowance of LTCL
        The Revenue's primary contention was whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not upholding the AO's action of recalculating the purchase price of shares at Rs. 2.69 per share, leading to the disallowance of LTCL amounting to Rs. 2.69 crores. The AO challenged the purchase price of Rs. 15.40 per share paid by the assessee, arguing that the company, Pyxis Systems Pvt. Ltd., was loss-making and did not justify such a premium investment. The AO based this recalculation on a valuation report obtained at the time of sale, which valued the shares at Rs. 0.014 per share. The AO substituted the purchase price with Rs. 2.69 per share, recalculating the LTCL accordingly.

        Issue 2: Justification of the Assessee's Investment and Genuineness of the Losses
        The assessee provided detailed justifications for the investment in Pyxis Systems Pvt. Ltd., including the company's potential, the advice of investment managers, and the performance of similar start-ups. The investment was made at a negotiated price based on the future growth potential, despite the company's accumulated losses. The assessee also explained the rationale for exiting the investment, citing global market turmoil and the company's inability to acquire targeted orders, leading to financial distress and a significant reduction in employee strength.

        The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee's justifications and held that the AO could not disturb the purchase price of shares as there was no provision in the Act warranting such action. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that the assessee had sufficient disclosed sources for the investment and that the AO's recalculation lacked a basis. The Tribunal concurred, noting that the AO did not provide an alternative valuation or substantiate the suspicion of overvaluation.

        The Tribunal also referenced the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Sriram Investments, which held that the AO could not reject the sale of shares at a lower price without supporting documents. The Tribunal highlighted that the AO's suspicion alone was insufficient to reject the claim of capital loss and that the AO failed to provide materials to disprove the assessee's justification or substantiate doubts about the valuation.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision. It concluded that the AO had no authority to substitute the purchase price of shares with a different value and that the assessee's investment and subsequent loss were genuine. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's recalculation lacked a legal basis and supporting evidence, affirming the assessee's right to claim the LTCL. The appeal was dismissed, and the order pronounced on 26/10/2022.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found