This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

S. 47(xiiib) : Capital gains-Transaction not regarded as transfer- Conversion of firm in to LLP–The conversion of a company into a LLP constitutes a “transfer”-If the conditions of S. 47(xiiib) are not satisfied, the transaction is chargeable to ‘capital gains‘-If the assets and liabilities of the company are vested in the LLP at ‘book values‘ (cost), there is in fact no capital gains-The argument that u/s 58(4) of the LLP Act, the LLP is entitled to carry forward the accumulated losses & unabsorbed depreciation of the company, notwithstanding non-compliance with S. 47(xiiib) is not acceptable-CIT(A) has rightly admitted the ‘audit report‘ filed by the assessee in ‘Form 10CCB‘ during the course of the appellate proceedings, and therein allowed the claim of deduction raised by the assessee under S. 80IA, thus uphold his order in context of the issue under consideration. [S. 5, 45, 47A, 48, 49(1), 72A(6), 80IA, 170, Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, 56, 58(4)]

ACIT v. Celerity Power LLP ( 2019) 174 ITD 433 /197 TTJ 45/ 174 DTR 68(Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 45 : Capital loss-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 followed (Kartikeya V. Sarabhai v. CIT (1998) 228 ITR 163 (SC). [S. 2(47)]

Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Bang)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 45 : Capital gains–Long term capital gains from penny stocks-Tribunal held that, it cannot be inferred that the assessee has manipulated the share price merely because it moved up sharply-The AO has to produce material/evidence to show that the assessee/brokers did price rigging/manipulation of shares- The AO must also show that the relevant evidence produced by the assessee in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statement, bank account etc to prove the genuineness of the transactions are false or fictitious or bogus. [S. 10(38), 68, 115BBE]

Arun Kumar v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org Manoj Kumar v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org Nitasha Gupta v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 45 : Capital gains-Long term capital gains on shares -Natural justice- Reliance by the AO on statements of third parties without giving the assessee an opportunity of cross-examination is a gross failure of the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order a nullity. [S. 10 (38), 131, 143(3)]

Anubhav Jain v. ITO ( Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org Ashis Hain v. ITO ( Delhi)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 45 : Capital gains-Transfer-Conversion of Cumulative preference shares( CCPS) into equity shares does not constitutes a “transfer” – Not laible to capital gais tax. [S. 2(47), 41(2), 45(4), 48, 55(2)(b)(v)(e)]

Periar Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO ( 2018) 196 TTJ 989/ ( 2019) 174 ITD 138/ 173 DTR 108 (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 45 : Capital gains–Capital asset-ESOP options provide valuable right to the assessee to exercise and have allotment of shares- They are thus ‘capital asset’ held by the assessee from the date of grant- If the assessee transfers the option itself, the capital gains will have to be assessed as long-term capital gains ,if the options have been held for more than three years. [S.2(14), 2(42A), 45, 48]

N. R. Ravikrishnan v. ACIT ( 2018) 68 ITR 457/ ( 2019) 175 ITD 355/ 177 DTR 289 (Bang.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 45 : Capital gains- Salaries- Perquisite-Gains arising to an employee from sale of shares allotted under ESOP (Employees Stock Option Plan) by foreign parent company cannot be assessed as “salaries” – It is assessable as “capital gains”-.Fact that employer has shown the gains as “perquisite” in Form 16 is irrelevant. [S. 15, 17(2)(v)]

Dr. Muthian Sivthanu v. ACIT(2018) 173 ITD 585 (Chennai)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 45 : Capital gains- Cash credits – Share transactions- Bogus capital gains-Penny stocks-If the holding of shares is D-mat account cannot be disputed then the transaction cannot be held as bogus. The AO has also not disputed the sale of shares from the D-mat account of the assessee and the sale consideration was directly credited to the bank account of the assessee. Once the assessee produced all relevant evidence to substantiate the transaction of purchase, dematerialization and sale of shares then, in the absence of any contrary material brought on record the same cannot be held as bogus transaction merely on the basis of statement of one Anil Agrawal recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata wherein there is a general statement of providing bogus long term capital gain transaction to the clients without stating anything about the transaction of allotment of shares by the company to the assessee. [S. 10(38), 68]

Ramprasad Agarwal v. ITO ( 201( 174 ITD 286 / 68 ITR 74 (SN)(Mum.)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 45 : Capial gains-Penny Stocks-Assuming brokers may have done manipulation, assessee cannot be held liable when the entire transaction is done through banking channels duly recorded in Demat accounts with Govt depository and traded on stock exchange-Nothing on record to suggest assessee gave cash and purchased cheque from broker- (Sanjay Bimalchand Jain ITA No 18 of 2017) dt. 10-4-2017 (Bom.) (HC) is distinguished). [S.10(38)]

DCIT v. Rakesh Saraogi & Sons (HUF) (Raipur)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source –Payment to web hosting charges to Amazon Web Services LLC (USA) (AWS) is not laible to deduct tax at sourcr- Web hosting chrgescanot constitutes “royalty” under Explanation 2 to s. 9(1)(vi) read with the India USA DTAA- Not liable to deduct tax at souce -DTAA-India –USA. [S. 9(1)(vi), 195]

EPRESS Prepaid Recharge Services India P. Ltd. v. ITO (Pune)(Trib), www.itatonline.org