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 rejects capital gains computation in US dollars, upholds decision on Indian rupees calculation.

        Atlas Commercial Corporation. Versus Income Tax Officer.

        Atlas Commercial Corporation. Versus Income Tax Officer. - ITD 001, 1088, Issues Involved:
        1. Computation of capital gains on the sale of shares by a non-resident company.
        2. Applicability of Rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
        3. Determination of the cost of acquisition of shares.
        4. Relevance of foreign exchange rates in computing capital gains.
        5. Applicability of Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
        6. Relevance of prior Tribunal decisions in similar cases.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Computation of Capital Gains on the Sale of Shares by a Non-Resident Company:
        The appellant, a non-resident company, sold 9,520 shares of Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. and declared capital gains of Rs. 16,016. The ITO rejected this computation, determining the capital gains to be Rs. 49,553 based on the sale price in Indian rupees. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this assessment, emphasizing that the transactions occurred in Indian currency and the capital gains should be computed in rupees.

        2. Applicability of Rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962:
        The appellant argued that Rule 115 should apply, converting the capital gains into US dollars. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that Rule 115 was not applicable because the transactions were conducted in Indian currency. The capital gains accrued in India and were realized in Indian rupees, making the rule inapplicable.

        3. Determination of the Cost of Acquisition of Shares:
        The appellant contended that the cost of acquisition should be adjusted to account for devaluation. The Tribunal rejected this, noting that the shares were acquired at Rs. 10 per share (totaling Rs. 47,600) and the cost was correctly determined in Indian rupees. The remittance of funds in US dollars for the purchase was deemed irrelevant for computing the acquisition cost.

        4. Relevance of Foreign Exchange Rates in Computing Capital Gains:
        The appellant's method of computing capital gains based on US dollars was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that for tax purposes in India, transactions must be evaluated in terms of Indian rupees. The remittance of sale proceeds in US dollars did not alter the initial receipt in Indian rupees.

        5. Applicability of Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
        The appellant argued that Section 45 should not apply as the capital gains were deemed or illusory. The Tribunal disagreed, affirming that the transactions were real and the capital gains were actual, not fictional. The appellant's own declaration of capital gains in its return further invalidated this argument.

        6. Relevance of Prior Tribunal Decisions in Similar Cases:
        The Tribunal referenced two prior decisions: Kelvinator International Corporation and Arwood Corporation. Both cases supported the view that capital gains should be computed in Indian rupees. The Tribunal found these decisions directly applicable and rejected the appellant's contention that they were distinguishable. The Tribunal also disagreed with a contrary decision in Abbey Etna Machine Co., favoring the reasoning in Kelvinator and Arwood.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal upheld the ITO's computation of capital gains at Rs. 49,553, dismissing the appellant's method of computation based on US dollars and the applicability of Rule 115. The transactions being in Indian currency necessitated the computation of capital gains in Indian rupees. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the reasoning and conclusions of the Commissioner (Appeals).

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found