Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.30 seconds)
Essar Investments Ltd. vs Dy. Cit on 22 May, 2007 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981

(iii) Since the holder of the warrant had a right to subscribe to the sharesof Essar Shipping Ltd., the said warrants constituted an asset. The fact that these warrants were otherwise non-transferable except the wholly owned subsidiary clearly indicated that it was a capital asset.The sale of these warrants would therefore result in capital gain and since there was no cost involved in acquisition of these warrants inview the decision of the Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Setty's case (supra). Even otherwise as the sale has been made to a subsidiary,profits if any determinable would not be chargeable to tax in termsof Section 47(iv). Therefore to hold the sale of warrants to the subsidiary company as speculative transaction is not based on correct interpretation of facts of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 859 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Simpson General Finance Co. Ltd. on 28 January, 1997

In this context, it may not be out of place to mention that in CIT v. Simpson General Finance Co. Ltd., 230 ITR 222 (Mad.), the assessee was found to have held the transferred assets for more than a decade and that is briefly why it has been held that the resulting capital gains (arising out of transfer to allied companies) fell within the exceptions provided in Section 47(v) read with Section 45. In other words, the decision in 180 ITR 208 (Cal.) would appear to be clearly applicable to the instant case even if it is assumed that the subject warrants are nothing other than shares and debentures.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960

10. The learned counsel further pointed out that the presumption that it is not an asset is patently wrong for which reliance was placed to the decision of the Punjab High Court (Delhi Bench) in the case of Hari Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO , wherein the High Court has clearly held that the right to subscribe for shares was property and, therefore, a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(4A) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and the amount realised by the assessee by sale of the right to subscribe for shares in the managed company amounted to a relinquishment of a capital asset for the purposes of Section 12B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. Drawing our attention further to the definition of the speculative transaction under Section 43(5) the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that a speculative transaction means a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scrips. Therefore, the treatment given to these transactions as speculative transaction by the n learned Commissioner in his order under Section 263 is illegal and unwarranted and totally strange to the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the assessee further pointed out that the transfer has taken place with the wholly owned subsidiary so as not to disturb the existing sharing patterns. Therefore, provisions of Section 47(iv) are clearly attracted and the learned Commissioner cannot say that the provisions of Section 47(iv) does not apply to the transactions. The assessing officer, it was explained by the learned counsel for the assessee, has applied his mind conscientiously to the facts of the case and to the provisions of Section 47(iv) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1681 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next