Commissioner of Income-tax-Vadodara-2 v. Vision Finstock Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0731-90]

Citation 2017-LL-0731-90
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax-Vadodara-2
Respondent Name Vision Finstock Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 31/07/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags purchase and sale of land • nature of transaction • capital gain • legal fiction of real sale • colourable device • distribution of asset • revaluation of asset • sham transaction • double taxation • revisional power • evade tax
Bot Summary: To put briefly, Revenue seeks to tax the consideration received by the respondent-assessee as partner of the two firms upon reevaluation and distribution of the partnership assets as short- term capital gain. CIT in a detailed judgement, reversed the order of the Assessing Officer holding that if at all the transaction was held to be sham, the additions can be made in the case of the firm and not the partners. The Commissioner also noted that in case of one of the partnership firms, the Assessing Officer had made such addition. In other words, now to tax the partner also would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal, while confirming the view of the CIT, further noted that in case of other partners, the Assessing Officer had had not made the addition. CIT had exercised revisional powers under section 263 which order was set aside by the Tribunal. We do not find any question of law arising.


O/TAXAP/485/2017 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 485 of 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - VADODARA - 2....Appellant(s) Versus VISION FINSTOCK LTD....Opponent(s) Appearance: MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for Appellant(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV Date : 31/07/2017 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against judgement of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 07.07.2016 raising following questions for our consideration: A. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, ITAT has erred in law in ignoring vital facts and real nature of transactions i.e. purchase and sale of land which clearly attracted capital gains and deciding case on legal fiction created by assessee without considering applicability of ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mcdowell reported in 154 ITR 148? B. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, ITAT has erred in law in upholding order passed by CIT(A), without appreciating fact that assessee has adopted colorable device to evade tax, which is not allowable as held in decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 10 15:19:06 IST 2019 O/TAXAP/485/2017 ORDER case of Mcdowell reported in 154 ITR 148? 2. To put briefly, Revenue seeks to tax consideration received by respondent-assessee as partner of two firms upon reevaluation and distribution of partnership assets as short- term capital gain. CIT (Appeals) in detailed judgement, reversed order of Assessing Officer holding that if at all transaction was held to be sham, additions can be made in case of firm and not partners. Commissioner (Appeals) also noted that in case of one of partnership firms, Assessing Officer had made such addition. In other words, now to tax partner also would amount to double taxation. Tribunal, while confirming view of CIT (Appeals), further noted that in case of other partners, Assessing Officer had had not made addition. CIT (Appeals) had exercised revisional powers under section 263 which order was set aside by Tribunal. 3. Considering such facts, we do not find any question of law arising. Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J.) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J.) Jyoti Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 10 15:19:06 IST 2019 Commissioner of Income-tax-Vadodara-2 v. Vision Finstock Ltd
Report Error