9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the claim of capital loss of Rs. 61,45,052/- could not have been disallowed ?" 2. The assessee Company is engaged in the business of trading-in shares and securities. filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2001-02 on 12.10.2001 declaring total income of Rs. 3,92,910/- , which included long term capital gain of Rs. 2,20,954/- . The same was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and thereafter, assessment order was passed on 25.11.2002 determining the total income at Rs. 4,28,610/- . However, the case was reopened by issuing Notice u/s.148 of the Act and ultimately, order was passed on 24.11.2003 declaring total income at Rs. 65,73,662/- . 3. Against the said order, the assessee file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessees were taken-up for scrutiny by the concerned A.O. and he made certain additions / disallowances to the income of the respective assessee. The assessees, therefore, approached the learned CIT(A) by filing separate appeals, which came to be allowed in part. It appears that, then, the assessees as well as the Revenue carried the matter before the Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. Hence, the present appeals. 4. At the time of admitting the present appeal, this Court framed the following question of law; Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the short term capital loss on sale of mutual funds within one day after earning tax free dividend inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was a "sale". The saleprice was received by the assessee. That, the assessee did receive dividend. The fact that the dividend received was taxfree is the position recognized under Section 10(33) of the Act. The assessee had made use of the said provision of the Act. That such use cannot be called "abuse of law". Even assuming that the transaction was preplanned there is nothing to impeach the genuineness of the transaction. With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd.v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] [154 ITR 148(SC)], it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] [263 ITR 706(SC)] it has been held that a citizen is free to carry on its business within the four corners of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
