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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1985 (5) TMI 82 - 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

        Tribunal aligns capital gains calculation with precedent The Tribunal concluded that the method of computing capital gains should align with previous Tribunal decisions, with the cost price and sale price in ...
                        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.

                            Tribunal aligns capital gains calculation with precedent

                            The Tribunal concluded that the method of computing capital gains should align with previous Tribunal decisions, with the cost price and sale price in dollars converted into Indian rupees at the date of sale. The assessee's appeal was partially allowed on this basis, while the cross objection was dismissed as infructuous. The Department's appeal was also dismissed as it was not pursued.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Assessment of capital gains on the sale of shares.
                            2. Correctness of the method of computation of capital gains.
                            3. Deductibility of the cost of improvement of shares.
                            4. Validity of the memorandum of appeal signed by attorneys.

                            Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Assessment of Capital Gains on the Sale of Shares:
                            The primary issue pertains to the assessment of capital gains arising from the sale of 628,670 equity shares of I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. by the assessee-company to Nitre Nobel AB of Sweden. Both parties involved in the transaction are non-residents, and the transaction was approved by the Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India, with the consideration settled in American dollars. The assessee contended that no capital gains arose from the sale of these shares. Alternatively, if capital gains did arise, the computation should be in dollars, with the profit then converted into Indian rupees.

                            2. Correctness of the Method of Computation:
                            The Income Tax Officer (ITO) computed the capital gains by converting the cost price and the sale price from dollars to Indian rupees based on the prevailing exchange rates on the respective dates of purchase and sale. The assessee challenged this method, arguing that both the purchase price and sale price should be computed in dollars first, and the resultant profit should then be converted into Indian rupees. This contention was supported by previous Tribunal decisions which held that the computation should be done in the currency in which the transaction was recorded in the assessee's books, i.e., dollars, and then converted to rupees for assessment.

                            3. Deductibility of the Cost of Improvement:
                            The assessee claimed a deduction for the cost of improvement of shares amounting to Rs. 916,181. However, this claim was not pressed following the Tribunal's decision in the case of Investment Corporation of India Ltd. vs. ITO, which held that the shareholders foregoing, surrendering, or losing profits transferred to reserves did not justify a conclusion that the assessee incurred any cost on the improvement of shares under Section 48(ii). The assessee's alternative argument was that if shares could not be improved within the meaning of Section 48(ii), no capital gains tax should be levied, citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. B. C. Srinivasa Shetty and the Bombay High Court decision in Evans Fraser & Co. vs. CIT. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the interpretation of Section 48(ii) does not imply that an asset must be capable of improvement for capital gains to be assessed.

                            4. Validity of the Memorandum of Appeal:
                            The Department contended that the memorandum of appeal filed before the CIT (A) was improperly signed and verified by A. Ferguson & Co. as Attorneys for the assessee, rather than by the director or managing director as required under Section 249(1). However, the assessee rectified this irregularity by subsequently filing a properly signed memorandum of appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT (A) was justified in disposing of the appeal on merits, and the Department's preliminary objection failed.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Tribunal concluded that the method of computation of capital gains should follow the precedent set by previous Tribunal decisions. The capital gains should be computed by taking both the cost price and the sale price in dollars and then converting the profit into Indian rupees on the date of sale. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed on this basis. The cross objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous, and the Department's appeal was also dismissed as it was not pressed.
                            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