Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Pawan Kumar Modi (Huf) on 4 August, 2010
Author: Sengupta
Bench: Sengupta
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction Original Side Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Sengupta And The Hon'ble Justice Mrinal Kanti Sinha 04.08.2010 ITAT 137 of 2010 GA 1865 of 2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, - IV Vs. Shri Pawan Kumar Modi (HUF) The Court :- Mr. Sinha appears for the appellant. This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following grounds as per his formulation :-
"a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding that section 94(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is applicable on the treatment of bonus shares when the CIT(A) confirmed the action in disallowing the loss of Rs. 1,73,31,423/- treating the same as dividend and applying Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the indexation on the cost of shares of Child World Pvt.Ltd.
without considering the facts that the loss incurred on sale of the said shares was set off against profit on sale of shares of Essar Steel Ltd. without indexed cost of acquisition." We have heard Mr. Sinha appearing for the appellant and we have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The issue before the learned Tribunal was at the instance of the assessee whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the loss of Rs. 1,73,31,423/- treating the 2 same as dividend and applying Section 94(7) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to conclusion that the aforesaid issue has been decided by the Tribunal of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Mohanlal N. Shah (HUF) Vs. ACIT and also by the Tribunal of the Delhi Bench in the case of Devinder Prakash Kalra Vs. ACIT.. Therefore while maintaining the quasi judicial comity and discipline the learned Tribunal did not take a different view. Nothing has been placed before us that the aforesaid two decisions which have been followed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment, have been challenged before the superior forum.
Under these circumstances we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is dismissed. However, liberty to apply if it is brought to our notice that any of the two decisions of the learned Tribunal has been challenged and such challenge is pending before any superior Court.
Let xerox certified copy of this order be given to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all formalities.
(Sengupta, J.) (Mrinal Kanti Sinha, J.) ANC.