TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:
(a) Whether the long-term capital loss claimed by the assessee on sale of shares of Shree Rama Newsprint Limited (SRNL) at a throwaway price can be disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on grounds of lack of business expediency and market price discrepancyRs.
(b) Whether indexing of the cost of acquisition of the shares, as provided under section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), ought to be allowed in computing capital gains/lossesRs.
(c) Whether the full value of consideration for the sale of shares can be substituted by an assumed market value, disregarding the actual consideration received, under section 48 of the ActRs.
(d) Whether the evidences furnished by the assessee, including the share purchase agreement and Minutes of Joint Lenders Forum (JLF), were properly considered or wrongly disbelieved by the AO and CIT(A)Rs.
(e) Whether allegations of collusive transactions to create artificial losses should be deleted where only a small portion of loss was set off and the rest carried forwardRs.
(f) Whether addition of long-term capital loss as income is justified when the loss was not set off in the year but only carried forwardRs.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue (a): Disallowance of Long-Term Capital Loss on Sale of Shares at Throwaway Price
Legal Framework and Precedents: The AO disallowed the long-term capital loss claimed by the assessee on the ground that the sale price of Rs. 0.0035 per share was grossly below the last traded price (LTP) of Rs. 12 per share on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) on the date of sale, indicating a non-genuine transaction lacking business expediency. The AO relied on the principle that transactions devoid of commercial logic and entered into with the motive to create artificial losses are liable to be disregarded for tax purposes. The CIT(A) partially upheld this view but directed recomputation of loss based on the remand report.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the shares were sold at a price far below the market price and that the AO had obtained data from the BSE Portal confirming the LTP at Rs. 12.56 per share. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claim of sale pursuant to a share purchase agreement (SPA) was not reliable in view of the vast price disparity. The Tribunal also considered the Minutes of the JLF which indicated a strategic investor's takeover and a coordinated sale by promoters at nominal consideration.
Key Evidence and Findings: The AO's remand report, BSE price data, SPA dated 21.05.2015, Minutes of JLF meeting dated 31.03.2015, and financials of SRNL were examined. The AO concluded the transaction was collusive and aimed at incurring losses to offset income in future years. The assessee's failure to provide cogent justification for the throwaway price was noted.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that genuine transactions must reflect business prudence and commercial logic. The huge discrepancy between the sale price and market price raised a strong presumption against the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal upheld the AO's disallowance of loss but allowed partial relief by directing recomputation based on the remand report.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the sale was pursuant to JLF directions and was a negotiated off-market transaction justified by the financial distress of SRNL and the strategic investor's involvement. The Tribunal acknowledged these submissions but noted the lack of examination of SEBI regulations and the fact that the sale price was abnormally low even for an off-market negotiated transaction. The Tribunal found the AO's and CIT(A)'s approach justified on facts but remanded for further consideration of these aspects.
Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the loss claimed on the ground of non-genuineness but partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes by remanding the matter for fresh consideration of the sale price in light of the assessee's submissions and applicable SEBI regulations.
Issue (b): Allowance of Indexation of Cost of Acquisition under Section 48
Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 48 of the Act governs the computation of capital gains by allowing deduction of indexed cost of acquisition from the full value of consideration. The assessee claimed indexed cost of acquisition but the AO and CIT(A) did not allow indexing fully, citing the questionable nature of the transaction.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that indexing is a statutory entitlement and should be allowed if the transaction is genuine. However, since the genuineness of the sale price was in question, the indexing benefit was also affected. The Tribunal observed that the purchase price was accepted but the sale price was disputed, affecting the computation of capital loss.
Key Evidence and Findings: The purchase price of Rs. 48.95 per share was accepted as per the SPA. The indexed cost of acquisition claimed was Rs. 3,49,99,984. The AO accepted the purchase price but questioned the sale price, thereby affecting the loss computation.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that indexing should be allowed on the accepted cost of acquisition if the sale consideration is accepted. Since the sale consideration was disputed, the indexing benefit was linked to the final determination of sale price.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee contended indexing was statutory and independent of the sale price issue. The Revenue argued that indexing is meaningless if the sale price is not accepted. The Tribunal leaned towards allowing indexing once the sale price is determined on remand.
Conclusion: Indexation benefit is to be allowed on the accepted cost of acquisition after the sale consideration is finalized on remand.
Issue (c): Substitution of Actual Sale Consideration by Assumed Market Value
Legal Framework and Precedents: The assessee contended that the full value of consideration under section 48 means the actual consideration received, i.e., Rs. 2,529/-, and cannot be substituted by an assumed market value. The Revenue substituted the sale consideration by the LTP of Rs. 8,980,588/- as per BSE data, disregarding the actual consideration.
The Tribunal considered the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. George Handerson & Co. Ltd. (1967) and other precedents which held that "full value of consideration" means the actual price received unless the transfer is between related parties and intended for tax avoidance, in which case market value can be adopted under the first proviso to section 48.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the proviso to section 48 permits substitution of market value only if the transferor is directly or indirectly connected to the transferee and the transfer is with intent to avoid tax. The assessee denied any such connection with the buyer. The Tribunal observed that the AO and CIT(A) did not conclusively establish these conditions.
Key Evidence and Findings: The share purchase agreement and declarations regarding no connection between parties were examined. The AO's reliance on market price without establishing connection or intent was found insufficient.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that substitution of sale consideration by market value is permissible only if the conditions in the proviso to section 48 are satisfied. Absent such proof, the actual consideration received must be taken as full value of consideration.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee relied on judicial precedents to argue that the actual sale price must be accepted. The Revenue argued that the market price should be adopted due to the huge disparity. The Tribunal found the Revenue's approach not fully supported by evidence.
Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the actual sale consideration as full value of consideration unless the conditions for substitution under section 48 are proved.
Issue (d): Disbelief or Non-Consideration of Evidence Furnished
Legal Framework and Precedents: The assessee submitted various evidences including the share purchase agreement dated 21.05.2015, Minutes of JLF, financials of SRNL, and board resolutions to justify the sale price and transaction genuineness.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO and CIT(A) disbelieved the share purchase agreement and other documents on the ground of lack of business expediency and price discrepancy. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not fully examine the implications of JLF's directions and SEBI regulations regarding negotiated off-market transactions.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Minutes of JLF indicated a coordinated sale by promoters to a strategic investor at nominal consideration as part of a revival plan. The Tribunal acknowledged this but observed that neither AO nor CIT(A) adequately examined these facts.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the transaction was part of a larger restructuring and that the price was negotiated under JLF's directions. However, the Tribunal also noted that the price was abnormally low compared to market price and required further scrutiny.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue doubted the genuineness and business expediency, treating the transaction as collusive. The assessee argued for acceptance of the evidences as proof of bona fide transaction. The Tribunal balanced these views and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) for reconsideration of evidences including JLF Minutes and SEBI regulations and directed the AO and CIT(A) to pass fresh orders after examining the submissions.
Issue (e): Deletion of Allegations of Collusive Transactions
Legal Framework and Precedents: The AO alleged the transaction was collusive to create artificial losses for set-off in subsequent years. The assessee pointed out that only Rs. 1,17,993/- was set off against the total loss of Rs. 5,98,62,950/- and the rest was carried forward.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO's allegation was based on the price disparity and lack of business logic but no independent evidence of collusion was brought on record. The Tribunal recognized that merely carrying forward loss does not imply collusion.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the allegation of collusion requires evidence beyond suspicion arising from price disparity. Since no such evidence was produced, the allegation should not be sustained without proper examination.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue relied on price anomaly to allege collusion. The assessee denied collusion and pointed to JLF's involvement and strategic restructuring. The Tribunal found the Revenue's allegation premature and remanded for further scrutiny.
Conclusion: The Tribunal directed deletion of such allegations unless supported by evidence after fresh examination.
Issue (f): Addition of Long-Term Capital Loss as Income When Not Set Off in Current Year
Legal Framework and Precedents: The AO added back the disallowed long-term capital loss to the total income on the ground that no set off was claimed in the current year and only carry forward was claimed.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the loss carry forward is a statutory right and postpones the benefit of set off to future years. The addition of loss as income is not warranted merely because set off was not claimed in the year of sale.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's return showed carry forward of loss. The AO's addition was based on disallowance of loss. The Tribunal found that disallowance of loss affects carry forward but does not justify addition of loss as income.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that if the loss is disallowed, it cannot be carried forward; if allowed, carry forward is permissible. Addition of loss as income is not justified.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that disallowance of loss means it cannot be carried forward and hence must be added as income. The assessee argued that loss was not set off but carried forward and addition is not warranted. The Tribunal sided with the assessee's position.
Conclusion: The Tribunal held that addition of long-term capital loss as income is not justified merely because set off was not claimed in the year and that the issue is contingent on final determination of genuineness of loss.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
"It is manifest that the consideration for the transfer of capital asset is what the transferor receives in lieu of the asset he parts with, namely, money or money's worth and, therefore, the very asset transferred or parted with cannot be the consideration for the transfer. It follows that the expression 'full consideration' in the main part of section 12B(2) of 1922 Act cannot be construed as having a reference to the market value of the asset transferred but the expression only means the full value of the thing received by the transferor in exchange for the capital asset transferred by him."
"The expression 'full value of the consideration' cannot be construed as the market value but as the price bargained for by the parties to the sale. The dictionary meaning of the word 'full' is 'whole or entire, or complete'. The word 'full' has been used in this section in contrast to 'a part of the price'. The words 'full price' means 'the whole price'. Clause (2) of section 12B of 1922 Act itself clearly suggests that if no deductions are made as mentioned in sub-clause (ii) thereof, then that amount represents the full value of the consideration or the full price."
"The legislature itself has made a distinction between the two expressions 'full value of the consideration' and 'fair market value of the capital asset transferred' and it is provided that if certain conditions are satisfied as mentioned in the first proviso to section 12B(2) of 1922 Act, the market value of the asset transferred, though not equivalent to the full value of the consideration for the transfer, may be deemed to be the full value of the consideration."
Core principles established include:
Final determinations on each issue were that the long-term capital loss disallowance was justified on facts but required recomputation; indexing to be allowed after sale consideration determination; actual sale consideration to be considered unless conditions for substitution are proved; evidences to be re-examined on remand; collusion allegations to be deleted unless supported by evidence; and no addition of loss as income merely on account of non-set off in the year.
TaxTMI 
