Administrative fraud classification suspension does not halt independent criminal investigation or warrant-based searches into alleged economic offenc...
Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
The case involves the interpretation of u/s 55(2)(b)(i) and u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) of the Income Tax Act regarding the cost of acquisition of bonus shares. The Tribunal held that the legislative intent of u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) is clear - capital gains on transfer of bonus shares should be computed with a cost of nil if conditions are met. The term "allotted" in sub-clause (iiia) refers to past allotment without specifying a date. The Tribunal rejected the argument that sub-clause (iiia) applies only to shares allotted post-1-4-1995. Referring to Dept. Circular No. 717, the Tribunal emphasized the simplicity of computation intended by the amendment. The Tribunal found that u/s 55(2)(b) applies to financial assets where a price is paid, not to bonus shares acquired without payment. Applying u/s 55(2)(b)(i) to bonus shares would render u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) redundant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the distinction between capital assets and bonus shares.
The case involves the interpretation of u/s 55(2)(b)(i) and u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) of the Income Tax Act regarding the cost of acquisition of bonus shares. The Tribunal held that the legislative intent of u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) is clear - capital gains on transfer of bonus shares should be computed with a cost of nil if conditions are met. The term "allotted" in sub-clause (iiia) refers to past allotment without specifying a date. The Tribunal rejected the argument that sub-clause (iiia) applies only to shares allotted post-1-4-1995. Referring to Dept. Circular No. 717, the Tribunal emphasized the simplicity of computation intended by the amendment. The Tribunal found that u/s 55(2)(b) applies to financial assets where a price is paid, not to bonus shares acquired without payment. Applying u/s 55(2)(b)(i) to bonus shares would render u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) redundant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the distinction between capital assets and bonus shares.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
