2010 (9) TMI 277

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nsel has very fairly submitted that since the period involved in the present appeal is of assessment year 2001-02 i.e. prior to the 1st April, 2002 before insertion of Section 94 (7) of the Act the business loss suffered by way of sale of shares , mutual funds , security, etc. could not be ignored in view of the decision of the apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Walfort Share .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dividend income of Rs. 22,17, 423.44 p. (Rs. 21,58,273 received from M/s Sun F C and Rs.59,150.06 p. from other transactions). The amount of Rs.22,17,423.44 p. was shown exempted under Section 10 (33) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it existed during the relevant year.? The assessee purchased 719424.46 units of some mutual funds on 22.2.2001 for rupees one crore. On the very day a sum of Rs.21,58 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bunal. We have heard Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shakeel Ahmad, counsel for the respondent. Sri R.K. Upadhaya, Standing Counsel has very fairly submitted that since the period involved in the present appeal is of assessment year 2001-02 i.e. prior to the 1st April, 2002 before insertion of Section 94 (7) of the Act the business loss suffered by way of sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X