Tax-neutral amalgamation and valuation evidence supported capital loss claims, while related-party sale loss was held genuine.

In a tax-neutral amalgamation, the holding period and indexation for capital loss computation were linked to FY 2008-09 because the township had been constructed and rental income assessed from that period; the Assessing Officer could not restrict indexation to the occupancy-certificate date, and the assessee's claim was upheld. The loss on sale of Bharath Nirman Fund units to a subsidiary was held genuine because both purchase and sale values were supported by registered valuer reports using the same NAV methodology, with the fall in value explained by erosion in underlying investments; related-party status alone did not make the transaction a colourable device, and the disallowance failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on the sale of the township after amalgamation, the assessee was entitled to claim indexation benefit from FY 2008-09 and treat the amalgamation as a tax-neutral transfer for computing capital loss; (ii) Whether the loss claimed on sale of Bharath Nirman Fund units to a subsidiary was a genuine loss or an artificial and colourable device.

Issue (i): Whether, on the sale of the township after amalgamation, the assessee was entitled to claim indexation benefit from FY 2008-09 and treat the amalgamation as a tax-neutral transfer for computing capital loss.

Analysis: The township had been constructed by the amalgamating company in FY 2008-09 and rental income from the property was being earned and assessed from that period. The amalgamation scheme fixed 1 April 2010 as the appointed date, and the transfer under the scheme was covered by the statutory exemption for amalgamation transactions. In these circumstances, the relevant holding period and indexation were correctly linked to FY 2008-09, and the Assessing Officer was not justified in adopting only the date of the occupancy certificate.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to indexation from FY 2008-09, and the addition made on this issue was rightly deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether the loss claimed on sale of Bharath Nirman Fund units to a subsidiary was a genuine loss or an artificial and colourable device.

Analysis: The purchase and sale valuations were supported by registered valuer reports, and the appellate record showed that both valuations were based on the same NAV methodology. The material also explained the fall in value through erosion in the underlying investments of the fund. The transaction was not shown to be false merely because it was between related parties, and the Revenue did not bring contrary material to displace the valuation evidence.

Conclusion: The loss was genuine and the disallowance was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: Both departmental appeals fail on the merits, and the assessee's claims as accepted by the first appellate authority stand affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual record shows that an amalgamation is tax-neutral and the evidence supports the relevant holding period and valuation basis, a capital loss cannot be disallowed merely on a different administrative view of the timing or on the basis of related-party dealings without contrary material.

---