Skip to main content

Dept cannot change status of Assessee to Trader when it had accepted him as Investor in previous year

ITO v. Shri Mukund T Parmar, while considering the details of period of holding share and drawn a conclusion that the Assessee dealt in the share of Core Projects Ltd. from which the income from short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains had arisen and the magnitude of dealings in the shares revealed that Assessee engaged in such business with complete knowledge and timing of the market. Hence, the AO treated the Assessee as a Trader, not as the investor and assessed income of Rs. 7,02,69,2369/- which was brought to tax as income under the head Income from business and profession. 

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A)who allowed the appeal of the assessee and observed regarding the part of the shares have been held as the investment and there appears to be no reason to treat the same as business income. 

The Appellate authority held that merely making the profit on the sale of shares cannot be held in the nature of trade since investment portfolios are created and held with the spirit of multiplying the value of the money. 

The Tribunal bench heard the rival submissions and observed the fact that “assessee is also dealing in the past in the securities wherein the Revenue has accepted income earned from sale and purchase of shares on delivery basis to be capital gains (losses) while income (loss) from F & O transactions was assessed as income under the head income from business or profession”. 

The bench directed to follow the principles of consistency instead of the principle of Res-judicata and held that Assessee is a trader according to the past years’ treatment.

Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/dept-cannot-change-status-assessee-trader-accepted-investor-previous-year-merely-made-profit-shares-itat/18142/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more