Search Results For: S. Parthasarathy


Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 29, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(47) Transfer: The reduction of share capital of a company by way of reducing the face value of each share from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 500 amounts to "extinguishment of rights" and is a "transfer" u/s 2(47) of the Act. The assessee is eligible to claim a capital loss therefrom (Kartikeya V. Sarabhai vs. CIT 228 ITR 163 (SC) & other judgements followed)

Sec. 2(47) which is an inclusive definition, inter alia, provides that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right there in amounts to a transfer of a capital asset. While, it is no doubt true that the appellant continues to remain a shareholder of the company even with the reduction of a share capital but it is not possible to accept the contention that there has been no extinguishment of any part of his right as a shareholder qua the company. It is not necessary that for a capital gain to arise that there must be a sale of a capital asset. Sale is only one of the modes of transfer envisaged by s. 2(47) of the Act. Relinquishment of the asset or the extinguishment of any right in it, which may not amount to sale, can also be considered as a transfer and any profit or gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset is liable to be taxed under s. 45 of the Act

Tagged with:

United Breweries Limited vs. DCIT (Karnataka High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 31, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 17, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A is applicable even where the motive of the assessee in acquiring the shares is to obtain controlling interest in a company and not to earn dividends

The question arose whether s. 14A applies to a case where the motive of the assessee is to acquire controlling interest in a company and not to earn dividends. The Tribunal followed the judgement of the Special Bench in ITO v. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd (2009) 312 ITR (AT) 1 and held that section 14A is applicable even where the motive in acquiring the shares was to obtain controlling interest in the companies. The Tribunal upheld in principle the applicability of section 14A but remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to ascertain from the facts of the case as to how much interest bearing borrowings was utilized to acquire shares in the companies

Bangalore Urban & Rural District Co-op Milk Producers vs. DIT(E) (Karnataka High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 1, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15): In order to constitute a “charitable purpose”, the object need not be to benefit of the whole of mankind or of persons in a Country or State. Even benefit to only a section of the public is sufficient. To ascertain the true nature/purpose of the Trust, the objectives have to be considered as a whole and not in isolation

Section 2[15] of the Act contemplates ‘charitable purpose’. ‘Charitable purpose’ includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. The phrase ‘any other object of general public utility’ if, examined in the light of the Judgment in the case of AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION [supra], it is not necessary that the object should be to benefit of the whole of mankind or of persons in a Country or State. If it is distinguished from a specified individual and if it is to the benefit of section of the public, it has to be construed as charitable purpose

Mohd. Khasim vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 26, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: block period
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
There is a perceptional difference in the operative force of section 271(1)(c) vis-à-vis section 158BFA(2). The charge against the assessee u/s 158BFA(2) could be, why they failed to compute true disclosed income out of the seized material.

On a comparative study of the scheme of assessment of undisclosed income for the purpose of block period, penalty impossible u/s 271(1)(i)(c) and penalty impossible on the undisclosed income in the block period, we find that income for the block

Top