9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom business and profession amounting to Rs. 1,37,69,660/-. 2. On the facts and on the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the setoff losses of Rs. 58,75,272/- as business loss which was the speculation loss as claimed by the assessee in the return of income. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year on 31.10.2007 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,37,69,660/-, which was duly processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The case of the assessee was selected for scr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness income of the assessee and taxed at 30% vide order dated 18.12.2009 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,37,70,422/- and allowed setoff losses of Rs. 58,75,272/- as business loss. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 18.12.2009, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority who has allowed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 09.12.2010. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and requested that the appeal of the Revenue may be allowed. 5. In this case Notice of hearing was issued to the assessee on the address as per record for 14.8.2017 by RPAD and in response to the same, neither the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in 288 ITR 641 on this issue.' The Assessing Officer has finally discussed the decision of Hon'ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT in Sarnath Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 16 DTR (Lucknow)(Tribunal) 97, wherein all the important judicial pronouncements at had been laid down on legal principles to determine the nature of transactions, such as Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh (Deceased) & Others VS. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC), CIT vs. Associated Industrial Development Co. Ltd. (1071) 82 ITR 586 (SC), CIT vs. H. HolckLarsen (1986) 160 ITR 67 (SC), Fidelity Northstar Fund & Others (2007) 288 ITR 641 (AAR) Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 68 ITR 486 (SC), Mrs. Sarojini Rajah vs. CIT (1969) 71 ITR 504 (Mad), CIT vs. Satlej Cott ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was clear that investment in the shares had been made out of borrowed funds. It has also been highlighted by the Assessing Officer that shares of same company were bought in trenches of different dates and sold in trenches on different dates depending upon the market value of the scrips and this reflected the prudence of a businessman dealing with his stockin- trade and not that of an investor. It has further been observed that assessee had devoted substantial time to dealing in shares. The Assessing Officer has observed that the shares has been shown as investment in the books of accounts of the assessee, but the same were not conclusive in deciding this issue and for this the Assessing Officer has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... @ 20%, after adjusting for inflation by indexing the cost of acquisition. For listed securities, the taxpayer has an option to pay tax on long term capital gain @ 10% but without indexation. For Foreign Institutional Investors (FIls), the long term capital gain and Short Term Capital Gains are taxed at the rate of 10% (without indexation) and 30% respectively. In case of a trader in securities, however, the gains are taxed as any other normal business income. With a view to simplify the tax regime on securities transactions, it is proposed to levy a tax at the rate of 1.15 per cent. on the value of all the transactions of purchase of securities that take place in a recognized stock exchange in India. This tax shall be collected by the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there in the original return. The AO has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that more or less the fact of these case are identical with the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Alluminium Co. Ltd., wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court has held that the revised computation of income could be accepted even after the time limit to file revised as prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act. The judgment of Apex Court in Goetze India Ltd. relied by the Assessing Officer is on totally different facts and rendered under totally different context and therefore, applying the same to the case of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
