Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2020 (12) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the bench, while recalling the order was as follows: - 9. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We notice that the Coordinate Bench in its order has set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) by observing that the share application money subscribed by the assessee is a receivable amount in case such shares were not allotted and the bench relied on S.R. Thorat Milk Products (P) Ltd. of Pune Bench decision, wherein it held that share application money is not a capital asset or cannot equate with share capital. However, we notice that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems Gmbh has considered the loan given to it subsidiary, even though a receivable amount. as a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act. Admittedly, the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court was not cited at the time of hearing of appeal. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT V/s Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (supra), has held as under: - XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX 10. Respectfully following the above decision, we are of the considered view that the issue raised in the appeal has to be de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e revenue was in appeal. The Tribunal in its order dated 30/08/2019 partially allowed the appeal by observing that though losses arising out of transfer of equity shares and preference shares would be allowable to the assessee but share application money could not be considered as Capital Asset within the meaning of Sec.2(14) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of Pune Tribunal in S.R. Thorat Milk Products (P) Ltd. while arriving at such a conclusion. However, as already enumerated by us in preceding para-1, the assessee, by way of its MA, brought to the notice of the bench that the facts would be squarely covered by the binding decision of Jurisdictional High Court rendered in CIT V/s Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems Gmbh. Finding strength in the said plea, the order was recalled for limited purpose. Accordingly, at this point of time, we are only concerned with determination of question whether share application money as transferred by the assessee would constitute capital asset within the meaning of Sec. 2(14) of the Act or not? The answer to the same would determine assessee's eligibility to claim set-off of these losses as arising out of transfer of share applic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is on the basis of valuation carried out by M/s. Infrastructure and Leasing Finance Ltd. The Respondent claimed the difference in the amount which was invested/ lent to SNISL and the consideration received when sold / assigned to Siemens AG as a short-term capital loss. However, the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment on 30th March, 2005 disallowed the short-term capital loss. This on the basis that the amount of Rs. 90 lakhs Euros lent by the Appellant to its subsidiary SNISL, was not a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act and also no transfer in terms of Section 2(47) of the Act took place on assignment of a loss; (ii) Being aggrieved with the order dated 30th March, 2005, the Respondent carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated 14th March, 2011, the CIT(A) did not accept the Respondent's contention that the amount of Rs. 90 lakhs Euros lent to SNILS was a capital asset and upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. However, held that although the assignment of a loss was a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Act, but it is of no avail, as the loan being assigned/ transferred, is not a capita....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....creditor were in the nature of capital assets. Thus, there was no dispute on the issue of 'capital asset' as in this case. Therefore, this appeal deserves admission. 5. We find that Section 2(14) of the Act has defined the word 'capital asset' very widely to mean property of any kind. However, it specifically excludes certain properties from the definition of 'capital asset'. The Revenue has not been able to point out any of the exclusion clauses being applicable to an advancement of a loan. It is also relevant to note that it is not the case of the Revenue before us that this amount of Rs. 90 lakhs Euros was a loan/ advance income of its trading activity. 6. The impugned order of the Tribunal has considered the meaning of the word 'property' as given in the context of the definition of asset in the Wealth Tax Act to hold 'property' to include every interest which a person can enjoy. This was extended by the Tribunal to understand the meaning of the word 'property' as found in the context of capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act. The Revenue has not been able to point out any reasons to understand meaning of the word 'property' as given in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....self-evident position as found in Section 2(14) of the Act, the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. The ratio of the aforesaid decision has subsequently been applied by the Hon'ble High Court in Pr.CIT V/s Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. (ITA No. 623 of 2017 dated 26/08/2019) also. 5. We find that the ratio of aforesaid decision squarely applies to answer the question posed before us. In the aforesaid decision, it has been held that the term 'Capital Asset' as defined in Sec.2(14) would mean property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession', except those which are specifically excluded in the said section. The only exclusion is only for stock in trade, consumables or raw materials held for purposes of business. Therefore, the word property would have wide connotation to include interest of any kind. The Hon'ble Court in CWT v/s. Vidur V. Patel [1995] 215 ITR 30 held the word property would be of widest import and signifies every possible interest which a person can hold or enjoy. The term should be given a liberal or wide connotation. Similar view was expressed i....