Intepretation of case of deputy commissioner of income tax v
Madhu Mittal
(Querist) 28 March 2018
This query is : Open
An case named DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GIRNAR INVESTMENT LTD. ITAT, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH Sikander Khan, A.M. & Y.K. Kapur, J.M. ITA No. 4330/Del/1998 17th July, 2003 (2005) 92 TTJ (Del) 711 :(2004) 88 ITD 419 (Del) that belongs to Section 45, 48, 55(2)(iiia), Asst. Year 1995-96, in which it was stated in last para:
“This brings us to the last submission of the assessee that the amendment carried
out in s. 55 by incorporation of sub-s. (iiia) clarifies the grey area as by virtue of the amendments the cost of bonus shares has been mandated to be taken as nil. The submission of the assessee was that on account amendment which has been carried out to clear doubt, the benefit of same should be given to the assessee. When we examined this contention of the assessee, we found that the amendment is operative from 1st April, 1996. It has no retrospective effect.”
From this can it be easily deduced that if the A.y. had been 1997-98 or later years, the benefit must have been given to assesse and there will not be any tax on short term
capital gain on shares in the said Girnar Case?
Girnar case is attached http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Intepretation-of-case-of-deputy-commissioner-of-income-tax-v-174796.asp
