TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,44,087,500/-. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 13.02.2007, after recording reasons, primarily for denying the assessee's claim of long term capital loss of Rs. 15,60,00,000/- and short term capital loss of Rs. 388,087,500/-, which was claimed to be carried forward to AY 2006-07. Brief facts apropos this issue are that during the previous year 2004-05, 5,480,000 equity shares held by assessee in Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd. were cancelled under the capital reduction scheme, which was approved on 10.3.2005 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court u/s 102 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the order of the High Court was registered by Registrar of Companies during the year ending March 31, 2005. The assessee had claimed that as per the defin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal on following grounds: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 544087500/- made by the AO on account of wrong claim of capital loss, holding that the cancellation of shares resulted in extinguishment of capital asset held by the assessee the therefore is a 'transfer' within the meaning of provision of section 2(47) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(Appeal) has erred in not appreciating the findings of the AO that the cancellation of shares was done for accounting and legal purpose only and in substance was an accounting transaction only and therefore cancellation of shares was not transfer within the meaning of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribed as notional loss and it is settled principle that no notional loss or income can be subjected to the provisions of the I.T. Act. We hold accordingly. 8. Respectfully following the decision of Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (supra), revenue's appeal is allowed. C.O. no. 155/Del/2012 (Assessee's cross objection): 9. Sole effective ground taken by the assessee in its cross-objection is as under: "That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXIX has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer had validly assumed jurisdiction to invoke the powers contained in section 147 of the Act to initiate reassessment proceedings against the resp....