TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 871
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition of Rs. 1,52,000/- as speculative income since the value shown in the contract note for sale was different than the value shown in Form 10DB in respect of transactions of shares of Ceat Limited". 2. After hearing the rival contentions, we find that the sole issue involved in the ground of appeal for adjudication is the value of sale of equity shares of Ceat Limited. The Assessing Officer considered the sale consideration of equity shares as per the computation for calculating Securities Transaction Tax. The assessee's contention that the actual sale consideration has to be taken and not the value considered for computing STT, was rejected by both the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT (Appeals). We have gone through the detail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) method as explained in the said circular. This derived sale value is then the basis for form 10DB on which STT is further calculated. This Circular is at Page 40 to 42 of PB. Therefore, it is not always a case where "Sale Value" as appearing in a contract note matches with "Value" for calculating STT (in Form 10DB). 3.02 During the financial year 2015-16, the assessee transacted in shares of Ceat Limited on 5 different dates as per Table A given below: Table A (A)Date of transactio (B) Contract Note No (C)Qty .Bough (D)Qty. Sold (E)Sale value after brokerage (F) Speculation gain/loss (G)Form10DBvalue (H)Form10DBvalue(other than n t (Deliver) de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rave;-vis Value of Sale of Shares appearing in Form 10DB in Exhibit - 2. The assessee incurred speculation loss and hedging loss out of transactions in relation to shares of Ceat Limited as detailed in Exhibit 3 and as per details in Table A above. These figures of Contract Notes (Column H) are matching with the values given in "Reconciliation Statement of Speculative Gain j (Loss) vis-à-vis Value appearing in Form No. 10DB in Exhibit - 3. 5. A reconciliation of the transactions of Contract Note No: N/R/215851 of 20.04.2015- (Page 18 to Page 20 of PB) Ceat Limited 7500 Purchase Rs. 6887064 . 35 Ceat Limited 7500 Sale Rs. 67 , 58 , 500 . 51 Hedging gain/ loss Rs. 1285....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; in exhibit 3 of reconciliation statement of speculative transaction submitted on 15 . 11 . 18 Difference Ceat Limited 6956975 6804975 152000 Wockhardt Limited 1763200 1763200 0 So value of sales cannot be different whether it is considered for speculation or considered for sale of shares just like Wockhardt Limited. Hence AR's contention is not acceptable. On this basis Rs. 1,52,000 is added with returned income as undisclosed value of shares during speculation transaction." The assessee refers to the contract note no N/R/158010 dated 15.04.2015 for Wockhardt Limited (Page 24 to 29 of PB) which was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings on 15.11.2018. The relevant data is r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant assessment records. The A.O. had added back Rs. 1,52,000 which represented the under valuation of shares as per reconciliation statement submitted by the appellant. The A/R of the appellant in his submission had held that the difference arose due to the methodology of charging SIT by the broker in compliance with NSE Circular No. NSE/CMO/0146/2004 dated 10.11.2004. The A.O. held that the difference in value of sales reflected in contract note and value reflected in Form 10DB was bound to arise because of the methodology of computing sales for the purpose of charging SIT. There is not much merit in the claim of the appellant. He could not reconcile in difference in turnover as reflected in the books and in Form 10DB. Form 10DB is evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contract notes of Ceat Limited appearing at Page 10 to 23 of PH and contract note of Wockhardt Limited appearing at Page 24 to 29 of PH. 10.01 In the case of Wockhardt Limited, the learned AO made erroneous comparison of the sale value as per Form 10DB for non delivery shares with the sale value of delivery shares and concluded that it did not result in any difference. But such cases do happen when Form 10DB values for these different types of transactions were identical, and in this case the value was same for both the types of transactions. 10.02 It duly disclosed the sale value of 8,000 shares of Ceat Limited at Rs. 67,85,804.96 as is evident from Exhibit - 2 appearing at Page 30 of PB as well as Table A above. The valu....