9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Direction to Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer questions of law. 2. Classification of transactions as speculative or non-speculative. 3. Allowance of set-off for net credit against net debit in transactions. Analysis: 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) filed an application seeking a direction for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer questions of law. The assessee, a sharebroker, had filed their income tax return, and the assessment revealed a mix of profit and loss from share transactions. The Assessing Officer categorized the transactions as speculative under section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, disallowing the set-off of speculative losses against general business profits. The Commissioner's order was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (A)-I, Kanpur. 2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the assessee qualified for an exception under clause (c) of the proviso to section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, which exempts certain transactions from being deemed speculative. The Tribunal found no evidence presented by the Department to disprove this exception, citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Ramakrishna Deo [1959] 35 ITR 312. The Tribunal noted the absence of material at the appellate stage to challenge the applicability of the exception. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the assessee did not meet the conditions for the exception, and no specific question was raised regarding this proviso. 3. The applicant's contention that the transactions were speculative was dismissed by the Tribunal based on the exception provided in the law. The burden of proof lay with the Department to establish that the exception did not apply, which they failed to do. As the applicant did not provide any material to refute the exception or raise a question related to it, the application for reference was rejected. The Tribunal's decision to allow the set-off of net credit against net debit in the transactions was upheld, considering the legal provisions and lack of evidence to the contrary. In conclusion, the application for reference was rejected based on the Tribunal's findings regarding the classification of transactions as speculative or non-speculative and the allowance of set-off in the assessed transactions.
|
