Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 163 (3.32 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd on 18 March, 1986

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S Bioworth India Private Limited , ... on 12 October, 2022

Even though the fact was highlighted in the A/R submissions, in his remand report the AO chose to remain silent on this vital aspect of the matter. If in respect of 58320 KPL shares sold at the same price, AO did not find any reason to disbelieve then apparently there was no reason or justification for the AO to disallow the loss incurred only on sale of 15000 shares. I therefore find full justification in the A/R's submissions that the loss of Es. 82,50,000/- incurred on sale of 15000 KPL shares was disallowed only on surmise. Besides the aforesaid finding, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases • of CIT Vs George Henderson & Co Ltd supra and CIT Vs Shivakami Co Pvt Ltd supra has held that that the AO does not have the power to substitute the actual sale consideration with the market value/ book value of shares. For the reasons discussed in the forgegoing therefore I direct the AO to assess loss on sale of 15000 KPL shares at Rs. 82,50,000/- Ground No. 8 to 11 are accordingly allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jcit, Ghaziabad vs M/S. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., Noida on 12 March, 2018

49. On Ground No 1 of ITA 785/Del/2011 while referring to Section 50C of the Act and CIT V. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that when there is no evidence direct or inferential that the consideration actually received by the assessee was more than what was disclosed or declared by him, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gain, we held that the expression full value of the consideration for sale cannot be construed as the market value but as the price decided upon by the parties to the transaction and the Ld. AO does not have jurisdiction to substitute the consideration received with any other higher value, in the absence of any material falsifying the contention of the assessee on the aspect of actual consideration received.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 42 - Cited by 112 - Full Document

Jcit, Ghaziabad vs M/S. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., Noida on 12 March, 2018

49. On Ground No 1 of ITA 785/Del/2011 while referring to Section 50C of the Act and CIT V. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that when there is no evidence direct or inferential that the consideration actually received by the assessee was more than what was disclosed or declared by him, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gain, we held that the expression full value of the consideration for sale cannot be construed as the market value but as the price decided upon by the parties to the transaction and the Ld. AO does not have jurisdiction to substitute the consideration received with any other higher value, in the absence of any material falsifying the contention of the assessee on the aspect of actual consideration received.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yogesh Das, Jaipur vs Ito, Jaipur on 31 August, 2022

While delivering the decision the Hon'ble Court has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami co. Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 wherein it was held that unless there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis of computation of capital gains. It was further held that capital gains tax is intended to tax the gains of assessee, not what an assessee might have gained, and what is not gained cannot be computed as gained.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs M/S. Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd.,, ... on 31 December, 2018

25. As noted above, Section 52 of the Act was omitted by Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1st April, 1988. The said provision, therefore, was not applicable in the Assessment Year 1999-2000. We have referred to the aforesaid judgment in K.P. Vearghese case (supra) as this judgment was referred to and distinguished by the tribunal in the impugned order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 46 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Adani Agro Pvt. Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs The Dy.Cit.,Circle-1,, Ahmedabad on 20 September, 2019

25. As noted above, Section 52 of the Act was omitted by Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1st April, 1988. The said provision, therefore, was not applicable in the Assessment Year 1999-2000. We have referred to the aforesaid judgment in K.P. Vearghese case (supra) as this judgment was referred to and distinguished by the tribunal in the impugned order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hollyhock Engineering (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 13 August, 1999

In the case before us the shares of Lupins Laboratories Ltd. and Nirma Ltd. allotted to the assessee were transferred to VIL/VAL at cost in terms of the agreements and even in a case where the law entitles the Revenue to substitute for the sale price, market price [s. 52(1) of the Act] the Supreme Court has held in the case of CIT vs. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) and K. P. Verghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) that the sale price can be substituted by market value only when it is found that in reality what is received is higher than the sale price. In the present case, it is not even suggested by the AO in his order that the assessee has received more cost from VIL/VAL. Therefore, the Revenue cannot substitute market value in place of cost as the amount realised by the assessee. However, in the assessment order the AO has held that because the transaction is illegal, the profit earned by VIL/VAL must be deemed to be that of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Neena Syal vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 September, 1998

Here, we may mention the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that 'unless there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains'. It was also observed that though the legislation in question, i.e. s. 12B(2), proviso (i), of Indian IT Act, 1922, was to remedy a social evil and should be read broadly and should be so read that the object is fulfilled, yet the onus of establishing a condition of taxability must be fulfilled by the Revenue. Thus, we feel that in the present case, AO has simply jumped to the conclusion that the impugned amount of Rs. 4.83 lakhs is undisclosed investment, without following due course of law.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 99 - Cited by 24 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next