| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
September 1, 2012 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Transaction of “sale” of “pledged” shares at loss to a group company with object to set-off loss against gains is not a “colourable transaction”
The assessee earned capital gains on sale of certain shares. To offset the gains, the assessee sold shares of another company, which were pledged to IDBI, to a group company, at a loss. The AO & CIT(A) treated the transaction of sale to the group company as a “colourable device” & rejected the loss on the ground that as the shares were pledged, they could not have been sold. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:
Though the shares were pledged with IDBI and the assessee did not have physical possession of the share certificates and had also undertaken to IDBI that the shares would not be transferred, there was still a “transfer” u/s 2(47). While there would be a serious question of validity of such transaction in so far as the assessee’s relationship with IDBI is concerned, and the purchaser would not be entitled to transfer the shares in its’ name, these issues were not relevant because the assessee did transfer whatever rights it had in the shares to the purchaser. The Revenue’s argument that the transaction was a “colourable device” and a “paper arrangement” is not acceptable because (i) there is no provision which prevents an assessee from selling loss making shares with a view to offset the loss against other gains and (ii) the transaction with the group company was at the fair value. The fact that the shares were pledged and could not be registered in the purchaser’s name did not establish that transaction was a contrived one (Sakarlal Balabhai 69 ITR 186 (Guj), Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC) & Vodafone 341 ITR 1 (SC) followed).
Related Posts:
- The All Gujarat Federation Of Tax Consultants vs. Union Of India (Gujarat High Court) (No. 1) We are of the view that the respondent No.1 – Union of India, Ministry of Finance should immediately look into the issue, more particularly, the representation dated 12th October 2020 at Annexure : I of the paper book (page 108) and take an appropriate decision at the earliest in accordance…
- The All Gujarat Federation Of Tax Consultants vs. Union Of India (Gujarat High Court) (No. 2) It is the case of the CBDT that it has declined to exercise its power under Section 119 of the Act as the conditions for exercise of such power do not exist. It is the case of the Revenue that the issue of hardship was dealt with considerably at the…
- Paresh Nathalal Chauhan vs. State Of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) It is a matter of deep regret that the Chief Commissioner of State Tax has attempted to justify such wrongful action on the part of the officers of the department by placing reliance upon the provisions relating to power of investigation under an earlier enactment to justify the actions of…
- PCIT vs. Gulbrandsen Chemicals Pvt. Ltd (Gujarat High Court) The significance of the aforesaid guidelines lies in the fact that they recognise that barring exceptional cases, the tax administration should not disregard the actual transaction or substitute other transactions for them and the examination of a controlled transaction should ordinarily be based on the transaction as it has been…
- Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant…
- Indus Towers Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Considering the fact that the petitioner has invoked the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner was expected to approach this Court with clean hands, which, unfortunately, we find is completely lacking in the present case. We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction in…
Leave a Reply