9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hd/2004 raising the following substantial question of law for our determination: Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of capital loss of ₹ 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 ₹ 3,92,910/- , which included long term capital gain of ₹ 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 ₹ 4,28,610/- . However, the case was reopened by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Order, are that the respondent-assessee in respective appeal filed his / her return of income for the year under consideration, claiming short-term loss from A.Y. 2001-02. The cases 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. The lead matter covers assessment years before insertion of Section 94(7) vide Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002. With regard to such cases we may state that on facts it is established that there 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
