9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 12 - AT - Income TaxCharacterisation of loss - loss from share transactions - short term capital loss to be treated as income under the head 'capital gains or business income/loss - HELD THAT - As the facts and the issue involved in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration remains the same as were there before the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2008-09 2015 (3) TMI 798 - ITAT MUMBAI which as observed by us hereinabove had fairly been admitted by the ld. D.R, we, therefore, finding no reason to take a different view therein respectfully follow the same. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A), who as observed by us hereinabove had held that the gain/loss arising on sale of purchase of shares under consideration was rightly reflected by the assessee under the head Short Term Capital Gain , thus, uphold the same. The Ground of appeal No. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the short-term capital loss (STCL) of ?6,18,51,987/- should be treated as "business income/loss" or "capital gains." 2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in its decision to treat the STCL as capital gains. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Classification of Short-Term Capital Loss (STCL) The primary issue revolves around whether the STCL of ?6,18,51,987/- declared by the assessee should be classified under the head 'capital gains' or 'business income/loss.' The Assessing Officer (A.O) observed that the assessee had declared a significant loss from share transactions and had engaged in a high volume of trading with a short holding period. The A.O concluded that the nature of these transactions resembled trading activities rather than investments, thereby reclassifying the STCL as business income. The A.O's determination was based on the volume and frequency of transactions, which suggested a trading intent rather than an investment intent. Issue 2: Justification of CIT(A)'s Decision The assessee contested the A.O's reclassification before the CIT(A), arguing that similar issues in preceding years (A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2008-09) had been resolved in its favor by the ITAT. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, citing previous rulings where the Tribunal had consistently held that such gains/losses should be treated under the head 'capital gains.' The CIT(A) relied on the principle of consistency and the assessee's historical treatment of similar transactions. Tribunal's Findings The Tribunal reviewed submissions from both parties. The assessee's Authorized Representative (A.R) emphasized that the issue was already settled in the assessee's favor in previous years. The Departmental Representative (D.R) conceded that the issue was indeed covered by earlier Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed the Tribunal's previous rulings and the CIT(A)'s predecessor's decisions for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11. The Tribunal examined the facts and circumstances, including the assessee's intent and the nature of transactions. It found that the assessee had maintained a consistent approach in treating such transactions as investments. The Tribunal cited its own decisions in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2008-09, where it had held that the gains/losses from share transactions should be assessed under the head 'capital gains.' The Tribunal also referenced multiple judicial precedents that supported the assessee's position, emphasizing that the mere frequency and volume of transactions do not necessarily indicate a trading activity if the intent is to invest. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) had rightly classified the STCL under the head 'capital gains' and dismissed the revenue's appeal. Conclusion The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the short-term capital loss of ?6,18,51,987/- as 'capital gains' rather than 'business income/loss.' The Tribunal's decision was grounded in the principle of consistency and supported by previous rulings in the assessee's favor for similar issues in earlier assessment years. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s order.
|
