Skip to main content

Sale of DMAT shares through recognised stock exchange cannot be treated as unexplained

In Omprakash Phatandas Panjwani vs. ACIT, 12000 equity shares bought by the assessee @Rs.9.95 per share were transferred to Dmat account on 13.8.2007 and then these were sold on 17.8.2007 and the price per equity share on the date of sale was around Rs.63. 

The AO suspected the impugned purchase because the payment was made after nine months even when there was no regular transaction between the assessee and broker and also there was extra ordinary increase in the prices of the equity shares. Accordingly, he made an addition in respect of the same by treating the same as unexplained income. 

On first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order. In order to confirm the genuine of the transaction assessee has submitted relevant documents before the Tribunal. 

The bench found that the only reason that the payment of purchase has been made after a lapse of nine months cannot render the purchase as non-genuine unless and otherwise any material is brought on record which could negate this fact and held that assessee has rightly shown the short term capital amounting to Rs.6, 44,816/- from sale of equity shares of IFCI Ltd and also added that source of amount of sale consideration of Rs.7,64,346/- which the assessee received through banking channel from sale of shares held in Dmat account through the recognized stock exchange which is verifiable from the contract note.

Read more at: http://www.taxscan.in/receipt-sale-shares-dmat-recognized-stock-exchange-evident-contract-note-cant-treated-unexplained-itat/17561/

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