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

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...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more