Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-Ii v. Liquid Investment & Trading Co
High Court
04 Sep 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-Ii v. Liquid Investment & Trading Co
Date of order
04 Sep 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-Ii v. Liquid Investment & Trading Co, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: While admitting this appeal on 5[th]September, 2005, the followingquestion of law was framed: "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in lawin not allocating any value to the detachable warrant enclosed tothe Non Convertible Debentures which had entitled the assessee tohave a right to...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
$~R-125*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 626/2005
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-II .... AppellantThrough:Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate.
versus
LIQUID INVESTMENT & TRADING CO..... RespondentThrough:Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. BhuwanDhoopar, Advocates.
CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
O R D E R04.09.2017
%
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by theRevenue directed against the order dated 3[rd]December, 2004 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.1493/Del/2004 for theAssessment Year 1996-97.
2. While admitting this appeal on 5[th]September, 2005, the followingquestion of law was framed:
"Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in lawin not allocating any value to the detachable warrant enclosed tothe Non Convertible Debentures which had entitled the assessee tohave a right to subscribe to a share of the company at a discountedrate?”
3. It is not in dispute that the said question of law stands answered againstthe Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the order dated 22[nd]
September, 2016 of this Court in ITA No. 595/2004 (CIT v. MohairInvestment & Trading Co.). Accordingly, the question framed is answeredin the affirmative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.
4. The appeal is dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 04, 2017dk
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.