TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1961 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. 2. The following grounds of appeal are taken by the assessee:- "The following grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to each other: 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing officer in disallowing the claim of Foreign Travelling Expenses of Rs.5, 44,0237- on the alleged plea that the same was not incurred for business purposes, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the * Learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the additional ground raised by appellant for reducing the Long Te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see was disallowed. The assessee further stated that the additional ground for reducing the long term capital gain on account of sale of shares of M/s MWI Cranes Pvt Ltd of Rs.1,42,44,725/- was not decided by the Ld.CIT(A). It is stated that the assessee works as an agent in India and abroad and dealing with non conventional energy engineering equipments. The assessee company is also into imports / exports / material handling equipment activities, etc. which is evident from the Memorandum and Articles of Association. The expenses of foreign travel of Rs.5,44,023/- was stated to be the foreign travel of Shri Gopal Vazirani, the Chaiman and MD and Mrs. Padma Vazirani, the director of the assessee company to London and other places. It was fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me arising out of the foreign travel in subsequent years also. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we conclude that the said expenses claimed by the assessee was for business purpose thereby allowing this ground of appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Grounds 2 & 3 : The assessee has raised these grounds on the fact that the Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated this issue which was raised as an additional ground by the assessee for reducing long term capital gain earned on account of sale of shares of M/s WMI Cranes Ltd of Rs.1,42,44,725/- for the reason that the same was subject matter of petition under section 264 and that the Ld.CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to deal with the same. 6. Ground 3 pertains to the fact that the Ld.CIT(A) has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bed for additional 56,000 equity shares in order to increase its shareholding in the company to 51% thereby resulting into 51% of holding in the company which was owned and controlled by M/s Konecranes& Finance Corporation. The assessee further submitted that as per the agreement "purchase price" means Rs.3,212,.31 per share which aggregates to Rs.155,00,00,000/- for all the shares" which means 4,82,519 equity shares of the company. The agreement also provided for certain promoters obligation wherein the promoter would neither buy and indemnify the purchaser of the company of certain claims imposed upon the company in relation to any liability prior to the closing date as per the terms of the agreement and that the said liability of promote....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... various dates from the escrow account. The assessee contends that the impugned amount is not considered to have been received by the promoters and was only towards the liabilities which arose against M/s WMC Cranes Ltd and that the impugned amount ought to have been reduced from the sale consideration in computing the capital gains arising on the transfer of shares of the company. The assessee stated that the capital gain at a higher amount of Rs.22,17,09,427/- being proportion of sale consideration of Rs.155,00,00,000/- without reducing the consideration by Rs.1,42,44,725/- being proportionate amount of Rs.9,17,04,240/- which was withdrawn from the escrow account for meeting out the liabilities which arose before the sale of share, was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ground filed by the assessee called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer and dismissed the additional ground on the ground that since the assessee has taken the additional ground for reducing the returned income before the Principal CIT-7 under section 264 which was rejected, thereby cannot be taken again before the Ld.CIT(A), who held that he did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the additional ground of appeal. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Having heard both the learned representatives and perused the materials on record, it is observed that the assessee has raised an additional ground before the Ld.CIT(A) claiming that the actual consideration received on sale of shares of WMI Cranes Ltd was....