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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more