2019 (1) TMI 1538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssment year 2011-12.   3. For the subject assessment year, the petitioner filed its revised return of income on 30.3.2012 declaring loss of Rs. 10.76 crore. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the petitioner had filed a letter dated 6.3.2014 wherein it had disclosed that the income earned by the petitioner on surrender of the shares under buy back-schemes of the subsidiary company is not chargeable to tax under Section 47(iv) and 47(v) of the Act as the said transactions are between the parent and the wholly owned subsidiary company. The Assessing Officer did not dispute the claim made by the petitioner in its letter dated 6.3.2014. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed an order on 21.3.2014 under Section 143(3) of the Act re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on and the value of consideration received by the shareholder or the holder of other specified securities shall be deemed to be capital gains arising to such shareholder. The assessee has claimed exemption by virtue of provisions of section 47(iv) and 47(v) of the Act. However, the provisions of Section 47 are applicable to capital gains taxable under Section 45 of the Act. The provisions of Section 46A are special provisions which are attracted in the case of buy back. The provisions of Section 47 do not exclude the provisions of Section 46A in the circumstances mentioned in the various clauses of Section 47. Hence, the claim of exemption of Rs. 16,23,84,125/- arising on account of surrendering of shares for buy back is incorrect. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 147 of the Act.   7. Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel in support of the Revenue submits that there has been a failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts in as much as they did not bring the attention of the Assessing Officer, to the provisions of Section 46A of the Act which would apply in the facts of this case. It is only now that the Assessing Officer has realized that Section 46A of the Act would apply. Thus, there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts which were necessary for assessment. 8. We note that long back in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd Vs. I.T.O. 41 ITR 191, it has been held that the obligation on the part of th....