If income arises out of the transfer of a long term capital asset being an equity share in a listed company, the said income would be exempt under section 10(38) of the said Act. There is no doubt that the shares of Goodyear India Limited are listed shares and therefore even if a consideration had been charged for the transfer of the 74% share, the income arising therefrom would be exempt by virtue of the provisions of section 10(38) of the said Act.
As far as the assessee’s claim on payment of additional interest is concerned, while confirming the Assessing Officer’s view that the payments were contrary to the RBI guidelines, the First Appellate Authority as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that all that the assessee could pay as per the RBI guidelines was 8% interest only and any amount paid over and above the permissible limit was against the public policy, hence, hit by Explanation 237 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As far as this line of reasoning is concerned, we find from the Circular issued by the RBI that there is ceiling on interest payable in current account/saving bank account and discretion is available on interest to be paid on term deposits. The circular reads as under:-
The assessee disclosed capital gain and claimed exemption under section 54F on the ground that entire sale proceeds were invested in construction of house property. In the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, denied exemption on ground that construction of house property was complete before the date of transfer of shares.
This Court in a series of decisions, has consistently taken a view that the creditors of the transferee Company would have no right to intervene in the petition filed by the transferor Company under Section 391 of the Companies Act. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Industrial Credit & Investment Corpn. of India Ltd. (supra)
The land in question abuts National Highway 73 and that the acquired land is extensively developed area and is near to Government College, Saket Hospital, District Headquarters/Mini Secretariat, General Hospital, Panchkula than Sectors 24 to 28, Panchkula for which land was acquired in the year 1989. Thus, the land acquired in 1995 was an urban land in close proximity with District Headquarter and much closer to the District Headquarter than the land of the assessee itself acquired in the year 1989.
Insofar as the other assessment years are concerned where the issue of limitation of four years does not arise, the position would not be any different. This would be so because on a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of section 80-IC(2) read with serial No. 20 of the 13th schedule of the said Act read with the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
We are of the view that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal have approached the issue correctly. The question whether the sale of the stock options would result in long term capital gains or short term gains was not very clear at the time when the respondent/ assessee filed his return for the assessment year 2002-03.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that right of consideration in appeal and on an application for waiver of pre-deposit, is a right conferred by the Statute and such right cannot be defeated on the basis of Circular, which contemplates that the recovery can be effected, is stay is not granted within 30 days.
In the present case, we find that the impugned order deals not only with the question of limitation but also with the question of valuation. It so happens that in the present case, the issue with regard to the valuation of the taxable services was decided in favour of the revenue but, because the extended period of limitation was not invokable, as per the Tribunal, the respondent-assessee did not prefer any appeal against the said order.
According to the Tribunal, was a condition precedent for making a reference to the DVO. The Tribunal also held that, in any event, the DVO’s report was based on incomparable sales and, therefore, could not be relied upon. The Tribunal also held that the burden was on the revenue to show that the real investment in the said properties was greater than the apparent investment, as disclosed by the respondent/assessee. The Tribunal held, on facts, that the said burden had not been discharged by the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and found that the reference to the DVO itself was not in accordance with law.
