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

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more