AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1.1. The brief background of the facts leading to the rise of present appeal : appellant, Deepak Nitrite Limited was holding the shares of M/s Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Ltd. (hereafter referred to as "Deepak Fertilisers" in short). Initially the Deepak Fertilisers issued partly convertible debentures of Rs.100/- on right basis to its share holders. Each debenture of Rs.100/- was consisting of 3 parts, part A, B and C with a detachable warrant in the following manner :- "(a) Part A of Rs.20/- which will be compulsorily and automatically converted on 1st January, 1990 into one equity share of Rs.10/- at a premium of Rs. (b) Part B of Rs.30/- which will be compulsorily and automatically converted on 1st January, 1991 into on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing upon the decision of Tribunal in ITA No.458/Ahd/1993, which is pending in reference before the High Court being I.T.R. No.66 of 1998 and as such, held that valuation of cost of this detachable warrant must be Rs.2.175/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid view, the appellant approached the Tribunal against the decision of C.I.T. (Appeals) and the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 09.04.2007 was pleased to partly allow the appeal but the view of the C.I.T. (Appeals) was affirmed and it is against this order of the Tribunal, dated 09.04.2007, which was received by the appellant on 22.08.2007, the appellant has preferred present Tax Appeal under Section 260A of IT Act by raising brief contentions. 5. The appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I.T. (Appeals). This being a clear error, said order deserves to be interfered with. 7.2. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah has submitted that in the background of this, the question of law, formulated be answered in favour of the appellantassessee and appeal be allowed. 7.3. With a view to substantiate his contention, the learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah has referred to following decisions : (i) [2008] 307 ITR 289 (Guj) (ii) [2012] 346 ITR 1 (Bom) (iii) The decision in ITA No. 518/Ahd/1993 decided by the Appellate Tribunal Bench, Ahmedabad on 07.08.2009. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Hirak Shah appearing on behalf of the Revenue has vehemently contended that Tribunal has not committed any error and as such, the appeal may not be enter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal, as also of C.I.T. (Appeals) the question before us is whether detachable warrants attached with part C of debentures of Deepak Fertilizers have any conceivable cost of acquisition or not and if not? whether to be treated as taxable capital gain on sale thereof or not? 11. Tribunal has examined the stand of C.I.T. (Appeals) and also of Assessing Officer, which in turn scrutinized the stand of the assessee's claim that warrant has no cost of acquisition, but then assessee had placed reliance upon one decision in B.C.Srinivasa Shetty case (supra), to contend that the same is not liable to be taxed. However, said decision was relating to a goodwill, which was undisputedly as self generating asset while presently, the issue is of detachab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... indicate the background of facts, if taken note of, said decision may not be of any assistance to the appellant. Firstly, the transaction of the assessee, in that case, was genuine or not was center of controversy and secondly, contention was raised whether detachable warrant had any cost or not, but that appears to be not the controversy between the parties and as such, the High Court felt that it was not sufficient for the Tribunal to embark upon such an exercise in the absence of any controversy being raised. Hence, the said judgment when taken in its entirety, especially paragraphs 7 and 8 and the observations contained therein would indicate that decision would not be of any assistance to the appellant and principles enunciated therei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt this valuation and calculate capital gains accordingly." As such, when the assessee itself has accepted the cost as indicated above, we are of the view that both the authorities have rightly come to the conclusion since the same is based upon the appellant's representation itself. 15. Under the circumstances whether matter was required to be remanded back or not was an issue and not required to be gone into since there appears to be a clear stand of the appellant itself, which has led the authority below to proceed and pass an order now under challenge. Now, at this stage, we may also take note of the fact that present appellant has tried to rely upon the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C.Srinivasa case (supra). In t....