Full News
ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order as assessee had not substantiated its claim.
ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order as assessee had not substantiated its claim.
"Gharse Online Services Pvt Ltd claimed short term capital loss of Rs 36 lakhs. AO took share purchase price at Rs 10/share instead of acquisition cost of Rs.12.50/share and recomputed STCG. CIT(A) confirmed AO’s order. ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order as assessee had failed to discharge the burden to substantiate its claim."-500310
1. Gharse Online Services Pvt Ltd claimed to have incurred short term capital loss of Rs 36 lakhs.
2. AO asked the assessee to explain price differential on account of sale of shares on the same date, which resulted in losses.
3. AO took the value of purchase price of 16,00,000 shares purchased by the assessee at Rs 10 per share instead of acquisition cost of Rs.12.50 per share.
4. AO recomputed short term capital gain at Rs.3,22,000 instead of short term capital loss of Rs.36 lakhs as claimed.
5. AO computed long term capital gain of Rs 4,22,000 chargeable to tax @ 20% against NIL long term capital gain.
6. CIT(A) confirmed AO’s order.
On appeal, the ITAT held as under:
7. Similarly, with respect to price differential on sale of shares on the same day i.e price Rs.10.0 and Rs.10.2 per share of BPIPL sold on 23.07.2007, the heavy onus was on the assessee company to bring on record cogent material and explanations to substantiate how the valuation of the shares have been arrived at and the reasons for price differential on sale value on the same day of the shares of the same company.
8. Thus, under these circumstances , heavy onus and burden was on the assessee company to substantiate and justify with cogent material and evidences that these agreements namely SPA and SHA both dated 20-07-2007 are genuine agreements and are not colorable devices and more so when three parties out of four including assessee company were associated concerns/enterprises.
9. In our considered view , the assessee company failed to discharge the burden cast on it as stated above and rather it was merely stating that there were agreements namely SHA and SPA both dated 20-07-2007 and the transactions were carried as per these agreements.
10. We do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly we uphold the same.
Case Reference - Gharse Online Services Pvt Ltd vs I.T.O.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 460 /Mum/2012
(Assessment Year : 2008-09)
×
