Wednesday, 2 September 2026

S๐ฎ๐œ๐œ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ž ๐ฉ๐š๐ข๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐š ๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ฌ๐š๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐š๐๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐จ๐ซ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฌ๐š๐ฅ๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ฌ๐ก๐š๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐š๐›๐ฅ๐ž ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐ฅ๐ž ๐œ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐œ๐š๐ฉ๐ข๐ญ๐š๐ฅ ๐ ๐š๐ข๐ง๐ฌ.

 ๐๐š๐ง๐ ๐š๐ฅ๐จ๐ซ๐ž ๐“๐ซ๐ข๐›๐ฎ๐ง๐š๐ฅin the case of Mohan Rajashekhar  ๐ก๐ž๐ฅ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐œ๐œ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ž ๐ฉ๐š๐ข๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐š ๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ฌ๐š๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐š๐๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐จ๐ซ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฌ๐š๐ฅ๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ฌ๐ก๐š๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐š๐›๐ฅ๐ž ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐ฅ๐ž ๐œ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐œ๐š๐ฉ๐ข๐ญ๐š๐ฅ ๐ ๐š๐ข๐ง๐ฌ. ๐“๐ก๐ž ๐“๐ซ๐ข๐›๐ฎ๐ง๐š๐ฅ ๐ก๐ž๐ฅ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ก๐ž๐ซ๐ž ๐š๐๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐ž๐ซ๐ฏ๐ข๐œ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ก๐š๐ฏ๐ž ๐š ๐๐ข๐ซ๐ž๐œ๐ญ ๐ง๐ž๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ฌ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ซ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ž๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ž๐ง๐๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ž ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง๐œ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ซ๐ž๐ ๐ฐ๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ž๐ฑ๐œ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ง ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ง๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐œ๐ก ๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ฌ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ซ, ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ž๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ž๐ง๐ฌ๐ž ๐ข๐ฌ ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐ž๐ ๐š๐ฌ ๐๐ž๐๐ฎ๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง.


๐๐š๐œ๐ค๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐:
1. The taxpayer, an individual, sold 13,770 shares of a company in which he was a promoter for ~INR 25 crore.
2. While computing capital gains, he claimed deduction of ~INR 1.5 crore paid as success fee to a transaction advisor for identifying investors, negotiating terms, coordinating due diligence and facilitating the transaction.
3. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction.

๐ˆ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ž ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ž๐ซ ๐‚๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง: ๐–๐ก๐ž๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐œ๐œ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ž ๐ฉ๐š๐ข๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ซ๐ž๐ฅ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐š๐ฅ๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ฌ๐ก๐š๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐š๐ง ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐š๐›๐ฅ๐ž ๐ž๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ž๐ง๐ฌ๐ž?

๐‘๐ž๐ฏ๐ž๐ง๐ฎ๐ž'๐ฌ ๐€๐ซ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ:
1. Engagement letter was between advisor and company (whose shares were sold), not the taxpayer in his individual capacity, and it was addressed to him only in his capacity as Chairman/Director.
2. Also, the buyer confirmed that no intermediary or agent was involved.
Therefore, Success fee had no direct nexus with taxpayer's transfer of shares.

๐“๐š๐ฑ๐ฉ๐š๐ฒ๐ž๐ซ'๐ฌ ๐€๐ซ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ:
1. Advisory services were directly connected with the sale of his shareholding.
2. Taxpayer furnished engagement letter, invoices, confirmations and correspondence evidencing the advisor's role.
3. Advisor acted as transaction consultant, not a broker or agent, and the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the share transfer.

๐๐š๐ง๐ ๐š๐ฅ๐จ๐ซ๐ž ๐“๐ซ๐ข๐›๐ฎ๐ง๐š๐ฅ ๐ก๐ž๐ฅ๐:
1. Substance of the engagement was the promoter’s divestment of shareholding.
2. Advisory services had a direct nexus with the share transfer.
3. Buyer's statement that no intermediary was involved did not negate the advisor's role as a consultant. Advisor confirmed that fee was for services relating to the taxpayer's share sale.
4. Success fee invoice was raised on, and paid by, the taxpayer from his personal bank account.
5. Success fee qualified for deduction as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer.

No comments:

Refund of pre-deposit cannot be withheld merely because litigation continues on the balance demand

  In a significant judgment in IBM India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2026-VIL-955-BOM), the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed an important p...