Skip to main content

Receipt from Sale of Shares by a Share Broker is Taxable as ‘Capital Gains

In ITO v. Kalpana Khandelwal, the Mumbai ITAT held that the amount received by a Share Broker is taxable as capital gain under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

The decision was based on the well settled proposition that the question as to whether a person has acted as a trader or as an investor in respect of share transactions, has to be decided on the basis of various factors listed out by the CBDT and Hon’ble Courts. While dismissing the departmental appeal, the bench noticed that the intention of the party is relevant in such cases.

Assessee, who is registered as sub-broker with SEBI, claimed that the receipt out of sale of shares is asseaable to tax under the head “capital gain”. AO, however, completed assessment by holding that the same constitutes business income of the assessee. The first appellate authority reversed the decision on appeal.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal contending that the assessee has been indulging in the activities of purchase and sale of shares as a trader. Assessee, on the other hand, contended that she has acted as an Investor only in these share transactions.

Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/receipt-sale-shares-share-broker-taxable-capital-gains-itat-mumbai/8284/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Taxscan+%28Top+Stories+%E2%80%93+Taxscan+%7C+Simplifying+Tax+Laws%29

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...