TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 977
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 11.7.2007 passed in this case by ld CIT(A) was based on surmises and was a non speaking one & that the assessee had not disclosed his motive for making such investment. Therefore, ld CIT(A) was not at all justified in allowing loss Rs. 1,04,45,051/- in spite of the fact that the assessee could not furnish any genuine and acceptable reasons for sale of shares at a price much below the actual value of shares on the date of sale. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that as per balance sheet of the company rate at the time of purchase was Rs. 533/- per share and at the time of sale was Rs. 665/- per share hence there was a profit of Rs. 132/- per share whereas assessee has show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had shown capital loss of Rs. 53,70,390/- which was carried forward to the next year. On examination of assessee's claim of long term capital loss, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had purchased on 31.3.2000 15000 equity shares of M/s Mankind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 1,12,50,000/- which the assessee had sold on 15.5.2001 for total consideration of Rs. 18,75,000/- thus incurring a long term capital loss of Rs. 93,75,000/-. The Assessing Officer further observed that the book value of share at the time of purchase made by the assessee was Rs. 533/- per share whereas as on 31.3.2001 the book value was Rs. 665/- per share. The Assessing Officer further observed tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- and the sales proceeds were received through crossed cheques. v) That in view of the restriction imposed by the Companies Act, 1956 as well as by Article of Association of the company, the appellant was forced to sell the shares only to the existing shareholders and that too with the approval of Board of Directors of the company. vi) That at the time of making purchase of shares of M/s Mankind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. the intention of the appellant was to acquire the majority of shares in time to come and to control the affairs of a developing company. However, he failed to acquire the majority shares and therefore he had to sell the shares only to the existing shareholders as per provisions of the Companies Act. vii) That appellant is neither....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the assessment records of the Assessing Officer. It is so acknowledged on the order sheet entry dated 26.12.2006 also. At page 2 of its reply dated 26.12.2006., it has been submitted as under:- "That at the time of making investment in the shares of Mankind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. the intention of the appellant was to acquire the majority of shares; in time to come; and to control the affairs of a developing company. The appellant, however, failed to acquire the majority shares, in spite of all his efforts made by him; so the appellant sold the shares; to any of the willing purchasers at that time. The shares in question were not sold to the Managing Director of Mankind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. alone. The appellant wants to add that IN A Private....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to any of the relatives of the appellant. The submissions made before the Assessing Officer were reiterated before the CIT(A). It is presumed that the predecessor of mine applied his mind to the facts and the explanation of the appellant before allowing the long term capital loss. On perusal of all relevant facts, I have no reasons to disagree with the view held by my Ld predecessor. The long term capital loss claimed at Rs. 1,04,45,051/- is therefore allowed." 5. Aggrieved, the revenue has again filed appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The Ld DR argued before us that it is a collusive activity on the part of assessee and is not a genuine transaction as the assessee himself seems to be a seasoned investor and he has been investing in many c....