9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or notification of the stock exchange would relate back to the point of time when the legislation was amended. Having regard to these facts, the Court is of the opinion that the ratio in Auric (2007 (7) TMI 276 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) squarely applies to the circumstances of the present case wherein held that since assessee filed full details of the sale of shares, he did not conceal any particulars of income – mere treatment of the business loss as speculation loss by the Assessing Officer does not automatically warrant inference of concealment of income. The imposition of penalty was not warranted. It is accordingly directed to be deleted and the impugned order of the ITAT is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 143/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted to be reduced. The further appeal to the ITAT however, was not successful. The assessee, as a consequence, has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A. It is argued that the question whether the nature of loss in this case was speculative loss or not was a matter of considerable debate. In substantiation of this proposition, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Navinchandra and Co. 2014 (222) Taxman 156 (Guj). The Gujarat High Court had inter alia observed as to whether such losses from commodities traded in stock exchanges which were not declared to be eligible at that time could be treated as speculative transactions was a matter of debate since there was a plurality of views amongst diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... soning given by the Tribunal. 15. The above being the position, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. Thus, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law, to fall within the limited purview of Section 260A of the Act, which is confined to entertaining only such appeal against the order which involves a substantial question of law. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue urges that the AO's order was based upon the assessee's original claim of capital loss. Subsequently, the treatment as business loss was accepted. In these circumstances, the AO was justified in treating the claim itself as an inaccurate particular or a material error which could pote ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
