Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2013 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 1211 - HC - Income TaxWhether purchase and sale of shares are speculative transaction - Held that - The assessee was engaged in the business of trading of crafts paper, installation, job work, consultancy and commission - The transaction whereby it purchased the shares and incurred loss on account of the fall in the value of the share was a solitary one - The Tribunal has recorded its finding that the transaction did not constitute the business carried on by the company, cannot be termed as perverse or unreasonable - No substantial question of law arises - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Interpretation of the explanation to Section 73 of the Income-tax Act 1961 regarding a transaction involving purchase and sale of shares. Analysis: The case involved the interpretation of the explanation to Section 73 of the Income-tax Act 1961 in relation to a transaction where an assessee reported a loss on the purchase and sale of shares. The Assessing Officer considered it a speculative transaction, disallowing the set off of the loss against profits from other businesses. The Appellate Commissioner also upheld this view, stating that the assessee was not primarily engaged in the business of buying and selling shares, as evidenced by a company resolution and its other business activities. However, the ITAT later accepted the assessee's appeal. The Revenue argued that the transaction fell within the Explanation to Section 73 (4) and cited a decision from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to support their stance that even a single share transaction could constitute a business. On the other hand, the assessee's counsel relied on a decision from the Calcutta High Court to counter this argument. The High Court, after considering the facts that the assessee was involved in various other businesses apart from the solitary share transaction, concluded that the ITAT's findings were not unreasonable. The Court found no substantial question of law and subsequently dismissed the appeal.
|