CIT Vs Bridgestone Corporation (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court held that in view of the retrospective amendment u/s. 112(1)(c)(iii) of the Income Tax Act the assessee is eligible to pay tax at lower rate @10% instead of 20% on sale of unlisted share even in absence of filing the claim by way of revised return.
Facts- The revenue has preferred the present petition mainly contesting that ITAT has erred in allowing the claim of assessee u/s.112(1)(c)(iii) with regard to taxing the Long term capital gain on sale of shares @10% though in Return of Income it was offered for tax @ 20% u/s.112(1)(c)(ii) and thereby contravening the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act and Section 119 as per if a person having furnished a return under sub section (1) of Section 139 or sub section (4) of Section 139 discovers any omission or any wrong statement herein he may file revised return within specified time only or on condonation of delay u/s 119 by the CBDT.
Conclusion- In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs.Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. reported in [2008] 306 ITR42 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that there is no prohibition on the powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which according to the Tribunal arose in the matter and for just decision of the case.
