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

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