TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 758
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO, on account of the sale of shares of M/s. Inter Gold (India) Pvt. Ltd., resulting in Long Term Capital Gain?" 3. The respondent-assessee is a firm belonging to one Harshad Mehta Group. The respondent-assessee firm own 19% shares in a compay namely M/s. Inter Gold (India) Pvt. Ltd. The respondent-assessee sold its 19% shareholdings in M/s. Inter Gold (India) Pvt. Ltd. to one M/s. Rosy Blue (I) (P) Ltd. and returned a capital loss as under: - No. of Shares Cost (Rs.) Index Cost (Rs.) Sale Value (Rs.) Gain/Loss (Rs.) 37612 3,52,29,659 4,55,67,000 3,52,29,659 (1,03,37,341) 1,50,450 11,28,37,500 13,90,90,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r share respectively. It holds that in the absence of any provision in the Act to replace the consideration received in fact on sale of shares, by adopting the market value is not permissible. In contrast attention was drawn to Section 50C of the Act which provides for substitution of the consideration received on sale of land and buildings by the stamp duty value of land and buildings (immovable property). It further held that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute the consideration shown as received on sale of shares by the respondent-assessee in the absence of bringing evidence on record to indicate that the consideration disclosed on sale of shares was not the complete consideration received and/or accrued to the respondent-assessee. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of the Apex Court relied upon in the impugned order were rendered under Income Tax Act, 1922 and therefore would not apply while considering the Act. 8. We find that both Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have rendered a finding of fact that the consideration of Rs. 750/- and Rs. 936/- per share received on the sale of the shares by the respondent-assessee was in fact the full consideration which have been disclosed to the revenue. It is not the case of the revenue that the amount disclosed by the respondent asessee was less than what has been received by them or what had accrued on sale of its shares. The revenue has not in any manner shown that the consideration disclosed by the respondent-assessee to th....