Allowed

Navin Jindal v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Supreme Court11 Jan 20102010 INSC 26 · [2010] 1 S.C.R. 2552010 INSC 26

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court held that the loss suffered by the assessee on renouncing rights to subscribe to Partly Convertible Debentures was a short-term capital loss, not a long-term loss, thus disallowing the Revenue's application of long-term gain deductions.

What did the court decide?

Civil appeals allowed; computation of income by the assessee upheld as correct and that of the Department dismissed as erroneous.

What the court decided

Navin Jindal versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Supreme Court (2010)

[2010] 1 S.C.R. 255

NAVIN JINDAL A

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (Civil Appeal No.634 of 2006)

¶5

JANUARY 11, 2010

¶6

¶7

[S.H. KAPADIA, H.L. DATIU AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

¶8

Income Tax Act, 1961:

¶9

¶10

s. 48 - 'Capital gains' - Offer made to assesseeshareholder to subscribe to Partly Convertible Debentures (PCDs) at par on Rights Basis - Assessee renouncing the right - Loss due to diminution in value of original equity shares on renunciation of right to subscribe to additional 0 shares/debentures - HELD: Rightly shown by assessee as 'short-term loss' - Revenue erred in treating the same as 'long-term loss'.

¶11

The assessee in Civil Appeal No.634 of 2006 held 1500 equity shares of a Company. The Company, in January 1992 announced issue of 12.5% equity share secured PC Os (Partly Convertible Debentures) of Rs.110/ - for cash at par to shareholders on Rights Basis. The assessee received an offer to subscribe to 1875 PCDs on Rights Basis. He renounced his right to subscribe to PCDs in favour of another Company on 15th February, 1992 at the rate of Rs.30/- per Right. Accordingly, assessee received Rs.56,250/- for renunciation of right to subscribe to PCDs. Against this s~!e consideration, assessee suffered diminution in the value of the original 1500 equity shares at the rate of Rs.200/- per share, totalling to Rs.3,00,000/-. Consequently, the capital loss suffered by the assessee was Rs.2,43, 750/-. The assessee showed the loss of Rs. 2,43,750/- as short term capital

255

[2010] 1 S.C.R.

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶19

A loss whereas the Revenue treated it as long term capital loss and computed assessee's income accordingly. The other appeals were filed in similar circumstances.

¶20

The question for consideration before the Court 8^{was: whether the amountof Rs.2,43,750/-was a 'short} term capital loss' as claimed by the· assessee, or a 'longterm loss' as assessed by the Revenue?

¶21

Allowing the appeals, the Court

¶22

c HELD: 1.1. The loss suffered by the assessee amounting to Rs.2,43,750/- was a short-term loss. The computation of income under the head 'capital gains' as submitted by the assesee is correct and the computation of income made by the Department is erroneous. [Para D 14) [270-C-D)

¶23

1.2. The right to subscribe for additional offer of shares/debentures on Rights basis, on the strength of existing shareholding in the Company, comes into existence when the Company decides to come out with E the Rights Offer. Prior to that, such right, though embedded in the original shareholding, remains inchoate. The same crystallizes only when the Rights Offer is announced by the Company. Therefore, in order to determine the nature of the gains/loss on renunciation of F right to subscribe for additional shares/debentures, the crucial date is the date on which such right to subscribe for additional shares/debentures comes into existence and the date of transfer (renunciation) of such right. The said right to subscribe for additional shares/debentures

¶24

G is a distinct, independent and separate right, capable of being transferred independently of the existing shareholding, on the strength of which such Rights are offered. [Para 8) [264-A-D]

¶25

¶26

1.3. For the purposes of s.48 of the Act, one must

¶27

NAVIN JINDAL v. ASSTI. COMMISSIONER OF 257 INCOME TAX

¶28

keep in mind the important principle that chargeability A and computation has to go hand in hand. Computation is an integral part of chargeability under the Act. It is for this reason that the right to subscribe for additional offer of shares/debentures comes into existence only when the Company decides to come out with the Rights Offer. B It is only when that event takes place, that diminution in the value of th~ original shares held by the assessee takes place. One has to give weightage to the diminution in the value of the original shares which takes place when the Company decides to come out with the Rights Offer. c [Para 9) [264-E•G]. . ·

¶29

Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay (1967) 63 ITR 651, relied on.

¶30

·Case Law Reference: D

¶31

(1967) 63 iTR 651 relied' on Para 10

¶32

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 634 of 2006.

¶33

From the Judgment & Order dated 11.8.2005 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Income Tax Appeal No. 55 of 2002.

¶34

¶35

WITH

¶36

C.A. Nos. 635; 636, 637 and 639 of 2006.

¶37

Ajay Vohra, Kavita Jha, Sandeep S. Karhail, Manoj Swarup for the Appellant.

¶38

B.V. Bhattacharya, ASG, Arijit Prasad, Rahul Kaushik, G Naresh Kaushik, B.V. Balaram Das for the Respondent.

¶39

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶40

S.H. KAPADIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

¶41

H '

¶42

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶43

[2010] 1 S.C.R.

¶44

A 2. In this batch of civil appeals, the narrow issue which arises for determination is the nature of the loss suffered by the appellant(s) [assessee(s)] - whether Rs.2,43,750/-was a shortterm capital loss, as contended on behalf of the assessee(s), or whether the said loss was a long-term loss, as contended B on behalf of the Revenue?

¶45

In the lead matter, being Civil Appeal No.634 of 2006, we are concerned with Assessment Year 1992-1993 corresponding to the Financial Year ending 31st March, 1992.

¶46

C 4. The assessee was a shareholder in Jindal Iron and Steel Company Limited [' J ISCO', for short]. The said Company announced in January, 1992, issue of 12.5% equity secured PCDs [Partly Convertible Debentures] of Rs.110/- for cash at par to shareholders on Rights Basis and employees on 0 Equitable Basis. The Issue opened for subscription on 14th February, 1992, and closed on 12th March, 1992. As the assessee held 1500 equity shares of JISCO, assessee received an offer to subscribe to 1875 PCDs of JISCO on Rights Basis. Assessee renounced his right to subscribe to E PCOs in favour of Colorado Trading Company on 15th February, 1992, at the rate of Rs.30/- per Right. Assessee received, accordingly, Rs.56,250/- for renunciation of right to subscribe to PCDs. Against the afore-stated sale consideration, assessee suffered diminution in the value of the original 1500 F equity shares in the following manner: the cum-right price per share on 3rd January, 1992, was Rs.625/-, whereas ex-Rights price per share on 6th January, 1992, was Rs.425/-, resulting in a loss of Rs.200/- per share. Consequently, the capital loss suffered by the assessee was Rs.3,00,000/- [1500 x 200] as G against the receipt of Rs.56,250/- on renunciation of 1875 PC Os.

¶47

To complete the chronology of events, on 7th August, 1991, assessee sold 8460 equity shares of JSL at Rs.240/for the total consideration of Rs.20,30,400/-, whose cost of

¶48

¶49

NAVIN JINDAL v. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF 259 INCOME TAX [S.H. KAPADIA, J.]

¶50

acquisition was Rs.3,63,200/- and, consequently, the A transaction resulted in a long-term gain for the assessee in the sum of Rs.16,67,200/-. Similarly, on 20th June, 1991, assessee sold 7000 equity shares of Saw Pipes Limited ("SPL", for short) at the rate of Rs.103/- each, for total consideration of Rs.7,21,000/- from which the assessee deducted Rs.70,000/B towards cost of acquisition, resulting in a long-term gain of Rs.6,51,000/-. In all, under the caption, "long-term gain" assessee earned Rs.23, 18,200/[Rs.16,67,200 + Rs.6,51,000]. These figures are not in dispute, though there is a small variation in arithmetical calculations made by the two c sides, which is insignificant.

¶51

The quantum of loss is not in issue in these civil appeals. The only question which this Court has to decide is the nature of the loss. The Assessing Officer accepted the computation of loss on renunciation of right to subscribe to PCDs at Rs.2,43,750/- but treated the same as long-term capital loss. As a consequence, the Assessing Officer reduced the amount of long-term capital loss by t~e amount of statutory deduction under Section 48(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is this calculation which is the subject-matter of challenge by the assessee(s) in this batch of civil appeals.

¶52

¶53

¶54

To answer the above question, we need to quote hereinbelow the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ['Act', for short] having a bearing on the issue in dispute:

¶55

¶56

"2(29A). ·Long-term capital asset' means a capital asset which is not a short-term capital asset.

¶57

2(42A). 'Short-term capital asset' means a capital asset held by an assessee for not more than thirty-six months immediately preceding the date of its transfer.

¶58

¶59

45(1). Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 53, 54, 548, 54D, 54E, 54F,

¶60

¶61

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 1 S.C.R.

¶62

·A 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Capital gains', and shall be deemed to be the ·income of the previous year in which the transfer took place.

¶63

48(1). The income chargeable under the head 'Capital B gains' shall be computed,--

¶64

[a] by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely:--

¶65

¶66

[i] expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer;

¶67

¶68

[ii] the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto;

¶69

Provided that in the case of an assessee, who is a non-resident Indian, capital gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset being shares in, or debentures of, an. Indian company shall be computed by converting the cost E of acquisition, expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer and the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset into the same foreign currency as was initially utilised in the purchase of the shares or F debentures, and the capital gains so computed in such foreign currency shall be reconverted into Indian currency, so however, that the aforesaid manner of computation of capital gains shall be applicable in respect of capital gains accruing or arising from every re-investment thereafter in, and sale of, shares in, or debentures of, an Indian G company.

¶70

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause,-

¶71

(i) 'non-resident Indian' shall have the same meaning as H in clause (e) of section 11 SC;

¶72

NAVINJINDAL_v._ASSTI.COMMISSIONEROF 261 INCOMETAX[S.H.KAPADIA,·J.]
(ii)'foreigncurrency'and·Indiancurrency'shallhavethe meaningsrespectivelyassignedtotheminsection2ofthe ForeignExchangeRegulationAct,1973(46of1973); ,.. .(iii)theconversionofIndiancurrencyintoforeigncurrency andthe reconversion of foreign currency into Indian currencyshallbeattherateofexchangeprescribedinthis n:J,behalf'-'"'¹'· , ' ' [b]wherethecapitalgainarisesfromthetransferofalong- .termcapitalasset(hereafterinthissectionreferredto, respectively,astong-termcapitalgainandlong-termcapital asset)by_makingthefurtherdeductionsspecifiedinsub-_ section(2). · (2)Thedeductionsreferredtoinclause(b)ofsub-section ;f1l'(1)arethefollowing;namely:-~ 1 • ·'·,.' •	A B C
[a)wheretheamountoflong-termcapitalgainarrivedat after making the deductions under clause(a)ofsub- section(1)doesnotexceedfifteenthousandrupees,the wholeofsuchamount; [b]inanyothercase,fifteenthousandrupeesasincreased libb"ya'su'mequalto,-- · , · · • ' ' '. (i)inrespectoflong-termcapitalgainsoarrivedatrelating tocapitalassets,beingbuildingsorlandsoranyrightsin buildingsorlandsorgold,bullionorjewellery,-- (A)inthecaseof acompany,tenpercentoftheamount "·.ofsu'ch'ga_fr;·ine~cesso{fifteenthousandrupees;. i J. 1,_ c j	E F
'(B)inthecaseofanyotherassessee,fiftypercentofthe amountofsuchgaininexcessoffifteenthousandrupees; (ia)inrespect of long-term capital gainsoarrivedat relatingtoequity,sharesofventurecapitalundertakings,-	G-
,(A).inthecaseof acompany,otherthanventurecapital	HH

¶73

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R.

¶74

A company, thirty per cent of the amount of such gain in excess of fifteen thousand rupees;

¶75

(B) in the case of venture capital company, sixty per cent of the amount of such gain in excess of fifteen thousand rupees;

¶76

¶77

¶78

[ii] in respect of long-term capital gain so arrived at relating

¶79

c to capital assets other than capital assets referred to in sub-clauses (i) and

¶80

(ia),--

¶81

(A) in the case of a company, thirty per cent of the amount D of such gain in excess of fifteen thousand rupees;

¶82

(B) in any other case, sixty per cent of the amount of such gain in excess of fifteen thousand rupees:

¶83

Provided that where the long-term capital gain relates to E both categories of capital assets referred to in sub-clauses (i) and (ii), the deduction of fifteen thousand rupees shall be allowed in the following order, namely:--

¶84

[1] the deduction shall first be allowed against long-term F capital gain relating to the assets mentioned in sub-clause (i);

¶85

[2] thereafter, the balance, if any, of the said fifteen thousand rupees shall be allowed as deduction against long-term capital gain relating to the assets mentioned in sub-clause (ii), and the provisions of sub-clause (ii) shall apply as if references to fifteen thousand rupees therein were references to the amount of deduction allowed in accordance with clauses (1) and (2) of this proviso:

¶86

H Provided further that, in relation to the amount referred to

¶87

NAVIN JINDAL v. ASSTI. COMMISSIONER OF 263 INCOME TAX [S.H. KAPADIA, J.]

¶88

in clause (b) of sub-section (5) of section 45, the initial deduction of fifteen thousand rupees under clause (a) of this sub-section shall be reduced by the deduction already allowed under clause (a) of section BOT in the assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1987, or any earlier assessment year or, as the case may be, by the deduction allowed under clause (a} of this sub-section in relation to the amount of compensation or consideration referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (5) of section 45 and references to fifteen thousand rupees in clauses (a) and (b) of this sub-section shall be construed as references to such reduced amount, if any.

s1 1

Explanation: For the purposes of this section,--

¶93

[a] 'venture capital company' means such company as is engaged in providing finance to venture capital o undertakings mainly by way of acquiring equity shares of such undertakings or, if the circumstances so require, by way of advancing loans to such undertakings, and is approved by the Central Government in this behalf;

¶94

[b] 'venture capital undertaking' means such company as the prescribed authority may, having regard to the following factors, approve for the purposes of sub-clause (ia) of clause (b) of sub-section (2), namely;--

¶95

¶96

[1] the total investment in the company does not exceed ten crore rupees or such other higher amount as may be prescribed; ·

¶97

¶98

[2] the company does not have adequate financial resources to undertake projects for which it is otherwise professionally or technically equipped; and

¶99

¶100

[3] the company seeks to employ any technology which will result in significant improvement over the existing technology in India in any field and the investment in such technology involves high risk."

¶101

¶102

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶103

[2010] 1 S.C.R.

¶104

A' 8. We find merit in this batch of civil appeals filed by the assessee(s). The right to subscribe for additional offer of shares/debentures on Rights basis, on the strength of existing shareholding in the Company, comes into existence when the Company decides to come out with the Rights Offer. Prior to B- that, such right, though embedded in the original shareholding, remains inchoate. The same crystallizes only when the Rights Offer is announced by the Company. Therefore, in order to <;letermine the nature of the gains/loss on renunciation of right to subscribe for additional shares/debentures, the crucial date G is the date on which such right to subscribe for additional shares/debentures comes into existence and the date of transfer [renunciation] of such right. The said right to subscribe for additional shares/debentures is a distinct, independent and separate right, capable of being transferred independently of the existing shareholding, on the strength of which such Rights D are offered.

¶105

For the purposes of Section 48 of the Act, one must keep in mind an important principle, namely, that chargeability and computation has to go hand in hand. In other words, E computation is an integral part of chargeability under the Act. It is for this reason that we have opined that the right to subscribe for additional offer of shares/debentures comes into existence only when the Company decides to come out with the Rights Offer. It is only when that event takes place, that F diminution in the value of the original shares held by the assessee takes place. One has to give weightage to the diminution in the value of the original shares which takes place when the Company decides to come out with the Rights Offer. For determining whether the gains/loss of renunciation of right G to subscribe is a short-term or long-term gains/loss, the crucial date is the date on which such right to subscribe for additional shares/debentures comes into existence and the date of renunciation [transfer] of such right.

¶106

Our view is based on the judgement of this Court in H

¶107

NAVI~ JINPAL v. AS~!if· _COMM'l~,~!O.J~~;Of;;?, 2!), , •. INCOME TAX'[$.H. KAPADIA, J]

¶108

the case of Miss Dhun Dadabhor. KapadJa vs .. Commissioner A\ of !nqonie-iax, 9may'.: r~~-0~~~" i:~ t17l3~~~r:,:..~~1], which h.as taken the v,1ew .tnt. f'?[, o~~u\1ng c:p.1b1 1 ~~1qi on renunciation of right , • • . = to 1 ·- subscribe· for additional. shares, .-,.,']• t-•1" )Gitib'-''..: -L l1¹ .<r1" diminution in the value' · I of· ~. original' ,-1 , .. i·'\i. shares i(>'Jj -·r1 would. 1 ; .. -·,t.)11(" be, regarded ·.<"1i' as. the co.st ?f ac.qu~~itio -fr~~NC::h rigP!)G R9~.;t·i15§55 B8 of t~~ . 1 sa1d iudgm,e~~r .'{'Je qo,e -~~~.10~~0".Y;.,W 1 [/eX.nt portion , '"ir·; of the -~ 1'• said , Judgement · . '· Which ,;[:!L further ,.· l'd.'IL.-i.i indicates (y;_.jG:::1V1'.i .lhat the ng~~ ,to, subcribe -r ilew, s1-el9iE:l~~qtur,s, 1..,,r?prte capital' asset' which comes into· existence only i.'! ~ . . j U• •, ",1qf-i.'" ' 1'1 1t· fr ;I when •1ll)IJ lhe C C6mpariy ('· passes Resolution -i "", for-the .·"ii 1 ··:b.l'('-·'· issue o.f new 1 !JVUbt.Jt11q!:" ,sJi'ares: 0. ,.., ."The capital asset which the"-appellafit'_ 6rtgifilly \ possessed consisted of 710 brdinafy''slfare~:BFihe '<company:· There was''already ~ rHovislcfn"l<tl1at?_'.ifl\the JI COIYlpany' iSSUed any 'hewnohares,"e\Jery' flolde(!OJ³ 0ld shares would be entitled'to such numbe(='of ordinary DCl . shares as the board may, by re'solution."decide.:.tfiitnght was possessed by the appellant because of herowrier8hip of the old 710 ordinary shares?'and'when tfie!boara of directors of the company passed a"-resolUtionr for issue of. new shares, this right of the 'appellant rriatured ti:tihe E , extent that she became entitled'to'receive ·71<5"new shares, i This right could be exeroisei:Fby h'df¹ /fy aaiually . purchasing those shares af theprescribeifii-at&; f>or·by renouncing those shares in favour of afiother1Jersolra'nd obtaining monetary·gain in that-trahsa'ction: ii.fthe\fime, F :i therefore, when the appellant renounced her right to take ' thse new'shares, the capital asset which she actually P9,~~eseq,coqsjst~cj <.?! !J!Jt91c;l ·7.1_ Q:$IJ,a_~sp/!J.s:.fhis _right t,o_ .ta~e _7.1.0_ n~"( sf?_ar~~ 1.J1a,,/ r.s~ .. 1 '>ril r·;nu JiJi;;.ii;rsn;; 1·· " .; ,, ' ,,!uor '):J !Jd c,J i·. '· , . '<.:' ai 3rno: .. 1i ii:n,cG C) 1::·:·: ::·.:· '";· :··· · . :.i Ei i k''· ..., ... 11 noiJr.-, ·h . .;:;t,,.JJ rn l() 9iJBv 1iu; cl n the alternative.' the. case :canJ be'exarriined , iri' ·another '⁰ aspect. At the time 'ofi:the 1ssue·•ofJ'ffe\N stiares'·thxe appellant possessed 710 old shares arid 'shealso"gofllie1 :-> right to obtain 710 new shares: Wherl'stie¹ so1d:tfos<iight' e:H H

¶109

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶110

(2010] 1 S.C.R.

¶111

A to obtain 710 new shares and realised the sum of Rs.45,262.50P., she capitalised that right and converted it into money. The value of the right may be measured by setting off against the appreciation in the face value of the new shares the depreciation of the old shares and, B consequently, to the extent of the depreciation in the value of her original shares, she must be deemed to have invested money in acquisition of this new right. A concomitant of the acquisition of the new right was the depreciation in the value of the old shares, and the c depreciation may, in a commercial sense, be deemed to be the value of the riJht which she subsequently transferred. The capital gain made by her would, therefore, be represented only by the difference between the money realised on transfer of the right, and the amount which she lost in the form of depreciation of her original shares in D order to acquire that right. Looked at in this manner also, it is clear that the net capital gain by her would be represented by the amount realised by her on transferring the right to receive new shares, after deducting therefrom the amount of depreciation in the value of her original E shares, being the loss incurred by her in her capital asset in the transaction in which she acquired the right for which she realised the cash. This method of looking at the transaction also leads to the same conclusion which we have indicated in the preceding paragraph."

¶112

¶113

[Emphasis supplied]

¶114

Section 48 deals with mode of computation of income chargeable under the head "Capital gains". Under that section, such income is required to be computed by deducting from the G full value of the consideration received as a result of the transfer of the capital asset, the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer anc;l the cost of acquisition of the asset. Under Section 48(1 )(b) of the Act, it is further stipulated that where the capital gain arises from the

¶115

¶116

NAVIN JINDAL v. Assn. COMMISSIONER OF 267 INCOME TAX [S.H. KAPADIA, J.]

¶117

transfer of a long-term capital asset, then, in addition to the expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer and the cost of acquisition of the asset, a further deduction, as specified in Section 48(2) of the Act, which is similar to standard deduction, becomes necessary.

¶118

The basic controversv in this batch of civil appeals concerns the stage at which Section 48(2) of the Act becomes applicable. For that purpose, we annex hereinbelow a chart indicating Computation of Income under the head "Capital gains", as projected by the assessee on the one hand and as projected by the Assessing Officer on the other hand.

On analysis of the said chart, one finds that, according to the assessee, the net income chargeable to tax under the head "Capital gains" is Rs.6,77,530/-, whereas, according to the Assessing Officer, the net Dincome is Rs.8,28,980/-. o According to the assessee, the loss suffered by him, as indicated in the chart, is a short-term capital loss of Rs.2,43,750/-, which occurred to the assessee on sale of right to subscribe to PCDs. The long-term gain, which accrued to the assessee on sale of shares of JSL and SPL, came to E Rs.23, 18,200/- to which Section 48(2) is applied by the assessee. On application of Section 48(2), the standard deduction comes to Rs.13,96,920/- Accordingly, the long-term gain, as computed under Section 48, accruing to the assessee on sale of shares of JSL and SPL came to Rs.9,21,280/- from F which the assessee deducts loss of Rs.2,43, 750/- resulting in the net income of Rs.6,77,530/-. On the other hand, according to the Assessing Officer, there is no dispute regarding the longterm gains accruing to the assessee on sale of shares of JSL and SPL amounting to Rs.23,31,200/- [difference in the figures is insignificant]. from the said figure of Rs.23,31,200/-, the G Assessing Officer deducts the loss of Rs.2,43,680/- as a longterm loss and applies Section 48(2) deduction to the figure of Rs.20,d7,450/-. Consequently, the Assessing Officer works out

¶123

¶124

' ' ' COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD "CAPiTAL GAINS

¶125

..		assessee		Asper assessing officer
ca121ta1ga1nstLoss: a]Short Term: Amountofsale proceeds (renouncementof1875 Right PCDs offerofJISCO from Colorade TradingCo.Ltd. on15.2.92@301-. Less : being costof acquisitionof1875 right PCD offerofJISCO being depleted in the valueof existing share holdingsof 1500 Equity shares as under:-	56,250				(/) c -0 ;:o m :s: m () 0c ;:o -I ;:o m -0 0 ~
Cum-right price per share on 3.1.92 625
Less : Ex-right price per share on 6.1.92 425 Difference 200
1500 [email protected]/- per share i.e.1500 x 200 (A)	(-) 3,00,000	(-} 2,43,750	NIL	NIL	(/) () ;:o

¶126

b] Long Term: I.On 8460 equity shares ofJSL: sold on 7.8.91 @Rs.240/- 20,30,400 Less: Aggregate costoJacquisition 3,63.200 II.Oti 7000 Equity shares ofSAWPIPESLTD.	) " •" .' 16,67,200		.!: {"-j ; ~ r,,	l · "' :' I) . •UJ c.«	. - IJ,*(.' <br>''	.,z ~-z Z'- oz oo; s::)>' mr -I:::: )> )> x_CJ)_
Soldon20.6.91@ Rs.103/- each Less : Cost during 7,21,000 [email protected]/- each 70.000	., f 6,51,000	Ci ..!" 23,18.200, ' ~.:		·- - -] ..... .;..~er,, ii23,31;200	: -	CJ) -I :r:-I· • •~·...J
Less: Long term capital loss due depreciationinthe value of1500 original shareof JISCO as a resultofright issueofPCDs after adjusting the profit realized on_ale_of discussed above Less : Deduction u/s 48(2): On Rs.15000/- @100% On Rs.2303200/- @60% {B) NetIncome under the head "capital gains" (A)+(B)	" <-{-· 0·' ::i { ;., ·- Cit *C..tJ* · . ~- -15,ooo: 1,:381,920 l:	, .			I f 6< "' ,..,^y ti1 .. !:t., {,) (fl ,, 0 <;,u.. ('I2	l': -N O> <O

¶127

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶128

[2010] 1 S.C.R.

¶129

A the net income at Rs.8,28,980/- as against the figure of Rs.6,77,530/-worked out by the assessee. The above analysis shows the controversy between the parties. Assessee treats Rs.2,43,750/- as a short-term loss, and, therefore, he applies the standard deduction under Section 48(2) to the long-term

¶130

B gain of Rs.23, 18,200/- from sale of shares of JSL and SPL, whereas the Assessing Officer applies Section 48(2) deduction to the figure of Rs.20,87,450/- which is arrived at on the basis that the loss suffered by the assessee of Rs.2,43,680/- was a long- term loss.

¶131

c 14. As stated above, we have opined that the loss suffered by the assessee amounting to Rs.2,43,750/- was a short-term loss. Therefore, in our view, the computation of income under the head "Capital gains", as projected in the chart submitted by the assessee and as computed by the assessee is correct. D In other words, the computation of income under the head "Capital gains" submitted to this Court by the assessee is correct and the computation of income made by the Department is erroneous.

¶132

E Accordingly, civil appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed with no order as to costs.

¶133

R.P.

¶134

Appeals allowed.

Navin Jindal v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Navin Jindal v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax

Income Tax Officer, Udaipur versus M/S. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd.

Controller of Estate Duty, Kerala versus Nalini v. Saraf

Mis. Southern Technologies Ltd. versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore

Commissioner of Income Tax-v, New Delhi versus M/S. Oracle Software India Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi versus M/S. Kelvinator of India Limited