BHS INDIA HOLDINGS, INC.,NEW JERSEY, USA V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1)(2), DELHI

MA 22/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves BHS India Holdings Inc., the applicant, who filed a miscellaneous application against the ACIT, International Taxation 1(1)(2), New Delhi, the respondent. The application was in relation to an earlier Tribunal order which allegedly did not address certain grounds (No.11-13) concerning the cost of acquisition of shares of Medfin India Private Limited for the assessment year 2021-22. The Tribunal had previously upheld the genuineness of the transactions and the capital asset status of the shares. The main legal issue was whether the unclaimed cost of acquisition of shares, which was not included in the original return of income, should be considered by the AO in light of the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal concluded that the AO is obligated to consider this claim as a consequential effect of the relief granted in the earlier order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714617 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: INDU BALA SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA KAPOOR; ARPIT GOEL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Miscellaneous Application No.22/Del/2025 (ITA No.3286/Del/2023) Assessment Year: 2021-22 BHS India Holdings Inc., 300, Frank W Burr Boulevard, Suite 36, 6th Floor, Teaneck, New Jersey 07666, United States of America. PAN: AAFCB8817Q Vs ACIT, International Taxation 1(1)(2), New Delhi. (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Aditya Kapoor, Advocate & Shri Arpit Goel, CA Revenue by : Ms Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.07.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises out of the Tribunal order dated 26.07.2024 passed in ITA No.3286/Del/2023 for AY 2021-22. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.22/Del/2025 2 2. On hearing both the sides, it comes up that the application in hand has been filed with a claim that grounds No.11-13 have not been adjudicated. It was submitted that grounds No.11-13 were required to be dealt independently. 3. On appreciating the order dated 26.07.2024, it can be observed that grounds No.4 to 10 were allowed on merits and the remaining grounds were held to be academic or left as consequential. Thus, grounds No.11 to 13 are with regard to the issue if the assessee is entitled to raise a fresh claim towards cost of acquisition of shares of Medfin India Private Limited which was not claimed in the return of income for the subject assessment year. The Bench has upheld the assessee’s claim that the sale and purchase of shares was out of commercial prudence and genuineness of transaction giving rise to disinvestment of shares held as capital assets, is established. The AO, in impugned order, has proposed to treat the entire sale consideration received of sale of Medfin India Pvt. Ltd. shares as income under the head ‘Income from other sources’ by holding that the assessee has not substantiated the legal existence, acquisition, possession and transfer of shares. The issue of not granting the claim of cost of acquisition of shares, thus, is consequential in nature. Although it was not claimed in the return of income for the subject year, but, when this Tribunal has held that the assessee’s transaction to be genuine and when the same was held as capital assets, while giving effect to the findings of the DRP and the findings of this Tribunal the AO shall be under obligation to Printed from counselvise.com MA No.22/Del/2025 3 also grant the assessee the benefit of cost of acquisition of shares even if the same was not claimed in the return of income. Thus, the determination of grounds No.11-13 do not require separate adjudication and the Bench has rightly concluded the same as consequential in nature. However, to make it crystal clear, the AO shall consider assessee’s claim towards cost of acquisition of shares, as consequential effect to the relief granted to assessee by order dated 26.07.24. However, the application has no merits. The same is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 08th August, 2025. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "