9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conversion of investment into stock-in-trade. 2. Allowability of loss u/s 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Summary: 1. Conversion of Investment into Stock-in-Trade: (a) The assessee claimed conversion of shares in Atul Products and Arvind Mills into stock-in-trade on November 9, 1961, and sought adjustment loss of Rs. 5,28,578 for the assessment year 1963-64. This claim was initially disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but allowed by the Tribunal. (b) The High Court examined whether the assessee's transaction of converting investment shares into stock-in-trade was supported by evidence. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka [1962] 46 ITR 86, it was held that such conversion is permissible and the market value on the conversion date should be used for profit computation. (c) The court found the transaction supported by evidence, including journal entries, a letter to the Income-tax Officer, and various ankadas showing dealings with brokers. The genuineness of these entries was not challenged by the Revenue. (d) The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was justified in holding the conversion as genuine and supported by evidence, thus answering the first question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee. 2. Allowability of Loss u/s 43(5): (a) The assessee claimed a hedging loss of Rs. 5,28,578 for the assessment year 1963-64, arguing that the transactions were to guard against price fluctuations as per section 43(5)(b). (b) The High Court analyzed the nature of speculative and hedging transactions, citing the Full Bench decision in Pankaj Oil Mills v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 824. Hedging transactions are genuine if they are meant to protect against adverse price fluctuations and do not exceed the total stock. (c) The court found that the assessee's transactions were genuine hedging transactions as they did not exceed the stock held and were supported by entries in the books of account. (d) The Tribunal was right in allowing the hedging loss claimed by the assessee, thus answering the second question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee. 3. Tribunal's Jurisdiction to Entertain the Appeal: (a) The Revenue contended that the point was already decided by the Tribunal in earlier appeals. However, the Tribunal noted that the conversion issue was not within the scope of the earlier appeals. (b) The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the earlier judgment did not conclusively decide the conversion issue, allowing the Tribunal to entertain the appeal on merits. (c) The Tribunal was correct in rejecting the preliminary objection and entertaining the appeal, thus answering the third question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee. Conclusion: All three questions were answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
|
