C.I.T. Kolkata - I v. Powerflow Holdings & Trading (P) Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0206-23]

Citation 2015-LL-0206-23
Appellant Name C.I.T. Kolkata - I
Respondent Name Powerflow Holdings & Trading (P) Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 06/02/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags transfer of share • concealed income • market rate
Bot Summary: MR.S.B.SARAF,ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT The Court : The Assessing Officer held as follows: The assessee company has got into the whole transaction without a registered stock broker. The rates at which it has been sold are at a lower price than what was 2 quoted in share market according to computer print out from the software of Mata stock to the two quoted shares. For example the assessee has sold the shares of M/s. Square Biotech to M/s.Swagatam Lafin Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.30.50 where as the market rate as per Mata Stock Software is Rs.36.00. The assessee company has entered into the above transaction only to book loss against the huge dividend income earned which it was aware of. Due to the above observation I disallow the whole transaction related to shares and treat the same as the income of the assessee. In an appeal preferred by the assessee, the learned C.I.T.(Appeals) held that the transaction was genuine. A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the transactions were duly supported by documents and there is nothing on record to hold that the transactions in respect of sale of shares by the assessee to its sister concerns are not genuine b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the learned Tribunal is perverse in the eye of law Mr.Saraf did not dispute that these questions basically are questions of fact, which have concurrently been found in favour of the 4 assessee.


ORDER SHEET ITA NO.696 OF 2004 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction(Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE C.I.T. KOLKATA - I Versus POWERFLOW HOLDINGS & TRADING (P) LTD. BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 6th February, 2015. MR.S.B.SARAF,ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT Court : Assessing Officer held as follows: assessee company has got into whole transaction without registered stock broker. sale has been made to its sister concern. rates at which it has been sold are at lower price than what was 2 quoted in share market according to computer print out from software of Mata stock to two quoted shares. For example assessee has sold shares of M/s. Square & Biotech to M/s.Swagatam Lafin Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.30.50 where as market rate as per Mata Stock Software is Rs.36.00. This difference is also concealed income of assessee. assessee company has entered into above transaction only to book loss against huge dividend income earned which it was aware of. It has deliberately booked loss. This transaction is nothing but mere eye wash to lower its income. No details of transfer of share is filed or any evidence for delivery is filed. Due to above observation I disallow whole transaction related to shares and treat same as income of assessee. In appeal preferred by assessee, learned C.I.T.(Appeals) held that transaction was genuine. However, he was 3 of opinion that shares should be deemed to have been sold on listed price. He further held that loss, if any, could be reassessed on basis of listed price. This order of C.I.T.(Appeals) was challenged before Tribunal. Tribunal agreed with findings of C.I.T.(Appeals). revenue has once again come up in appeal. following questions of law have been proposed by revenue. a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, learned Tribunal was right in holding that transactions were duly supported by documents and there is nothing on record to hold that transactions in respect of sale of shares by assessee to its sister concerns are not genuine? b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case order of learned Tribunal is perverse in eye of law? Mr.Saraf did not dispute that these questions basically are questions of fact, which have concurrently been found in favour of 4 assessee. Mr.Saraf did not also dispute that view taken both by C.I.T.(Appeals) and learned Tribunal is possible view and, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse by any stretch of imagination. In that view of matter, first question is answered affirmative and second question is answered in negative. appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sb. C.I.T. Kolkata - I v. Powerflow Holdings & Trading (P) Ltd
Report Error