Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.76 seconds)
Joint Cit, Sr19 vs Walchand Capital Ltd. on 14 March, 2007 cites

Shekhawati General Traders Ltd vs Income Tax Officer, Company Circle I, ... on 4 October, 1971

In Shekhawati General Traders Ltd v. ITO , the court laid stress on the fact that the assessee had opted to take the cost of acquisition as provided by the relevant statute, ie., the statutory cost of acquisition and thus substituting the market value as on 1-1-1954, in place of the actual cost of acquisition, and only in such a case, the subsequent issue of bonus shares cannot affect the issue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 46 - A N Grover - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar vs Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd on 13 March, 1964

Held, that in the case of CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. , the Supreme Court has held that where the existing shares and the bonus shares rank pari passu, the proper method of valuation of the bonus shares is to take the amount spent by the shareholder in acquiring his original shares and to spread it over the old and new shares treating the new as accretions to the old and to treat the cost of the original shares as the cost price of the old shares and bonus shares taken together. This was the method rightly followed by the Income Tax Officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 140 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

M/S. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Limited vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, New ... on 26 September, 1996

16. It is notable that no question arose before the Madras High Court in the above two cases with regard to indexing the FMV on statutory date or the cost of acquisition as the case may be. Therefore, the Madras High Court adopted a logical view that where the original shares as well as the bonus shares are entirely sold away, spreading of cost between the original and the bonus shares would only be an exercise in futility, because in either case the total cost of acquisition would remain the same. In the case before us, the indexed cost of acquisition is required to be adopted. To make such indexation possible and workable it is essential to determine the base year and the cost of acquisition of the original shares which have been purchased during the base year. This would be possible only when some cost is attributed to the bonus shares. The principle of averaging the cost of the original shares between the original shares and bonus shares has been settled by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. (supra). It may suffice to reproduce below the ratio of the Supreme Court decision from the head-note of the report as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 60 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 December, 2004

The same view is reiterated by a decision of this Court in Naresh (R) v. CIT (1998) 145 CTR 327. Therefore, when all the shares including bonus shares were sold and transferred, it is not necessary to ascertain the value of bonus shares separately and the cost of all shares being a known figure, it would be deducted to compute the capital gains. The view arrived at by the Tribunal is in consonance with various decisions, cited supra. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal in holding that the assessee is not entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 1,53,128 as cost of bonus shares in addition to the cost of acquisition of original shares in the two amalgamated companies.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 59 - P Krishna - Full Document
1   2 3 Next