TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mounting to Rs. 1,37,89,600/- contrary to the express provisions of Section 80 of the IT Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that so far as any loss is concerned, it can be carried forward only if it is determined in pursuance of return filed u/s 139(3) and not u/s 139(1), as provided in section 80 of the I.T. Act. 3. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reliance of Ld. CIT(A) on judicial decisions was unwarranted as the facts involved in this case are distinguishable. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the question of considering revised return is not applicable to the retur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... share warrants were issued to the assessee appellant at the value of Rs. 78.35/- per share warrant at Rs. 15,67,00,000/-. The assessee appellant has paid Rs. 1,56,70,000/- i.e. 10% of the total value as advance. The assessee appellant has exercised its option and converted 2,40,000 share warrants into shares in the month of February 2009, with the intention that the rest of warrant will be converted in due course. After the conversion of part of the Share Warrants, in the month of February, the price of equity shares dropped in the share market and therefore the assessee appellant had not exercise their option to convert the balance warrant within the validity period. The assessee appellant did not pay the balance 90% of the total amount p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red on forfeiture of the amount paid as advance for share warrants to the company is a capital loss and is assessable accordingly. The promoters inadvertently has not claimed the said loss in their Return of Income filed for the relevant year i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 and claimed during assessment proceedings U/s 143(3) by filing the letter and revised computation of income. It is important to mention that a letter dt 07.01.2013 was filed with the AO and the same has been acknowledged by the AO in its order. The assessee had even filed revised computation of income before the AO. The A.O. did not doubted the genuineness of the claim and merely disallowed the claim on the basis that the assessee has not claimed any loss in the orig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Global Securities Ltd. vs. ITO (DELHI) I.T.A. No. 1760/Del/2009. (iii) Kanpur Coal Syndicate vs. CIT 53 ITR 225 (iv) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. 360 ITR 682 (Delhi High Court). (v) NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (Supreme Court). (vi) Sushil Kumar Das vs. ITO (ITA No. 193/Kol/2011) (vii) NHK Spring Ltd. (Delhi ITAT) In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the case laws cited by us, your honours may kindly accept the claim of short term capital loss of Rs. 1,37,89,600 of the assessee claimed during the course of assessment and direct the assessing officer to allow the short term capital loss to carry forward for subsequent year. We may add here that recently as pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i, it has been held that if the assessee files a revised computation of income before the AO during the assessment proceedings the same needs to be considered by the AO and the claim of the assessee should be verified and examined. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has relied on a number of previous judgments. The appeal filed by the revenue in the Supreme Court against the decision of Delhi High Court has also been dismissed in the above case. The appellant has also relied upon a decision of ACIT vs. NHK Spring India Ltd. ITA No. 285/Del/2012. The ITAT in this case has observed that the decision of Goetze (supra) does not lay any fetters on the power of appellate authorities. Thus, from the above, in my humble view there i....