2019 (5) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Jasani for Respondent.   P. C. : 1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge the Judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The following question is presented for our consideration. "Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance of short term capital loss of Rs. 14,40,00,000/made by the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Assessing Officer rejected the claim on the ground that at the end of the period of 18 months, the warrant had become valueless and that, therefore, there is no transfer of capital asset. 5. The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's claim relying on the decision of Karnataka High Court and Delhi High Court.   6. We notice that Karnataka High Court, in the case of Dep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....does not deserve admission as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. This is so on two grounds. First of all, the question of whether forfeiture amounted to transfer, was not at all raised before the authorities below and in view of the decision of this Court in Indo-count Finance Ltd. [2004] 271 ITR 215, we cannot permit the Revenue to take up this issue for the first time b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent, case we find that the forfeiture of the convertible warrant has resulted in extinguishment of the right of the assessee to obtain a share in BLB Ltd. It is not a case where the asset itself has been extinguished or destroyed. A share in a company is nothing but a share in the ownership of the company. While the right of the assessee to share in the ownership of the company (BLB Ltd.) stands e....