Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 1368 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (12) TMI 1368 - ITAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Transaction of shares - business income or Short Term Capital Gains eligible to concessional tax treatment u/s.111A - Held that:- The assessee has indulged in violation of SEBI Regulation while making investment in IPOs. However, whatever amounts the assessee had illegally earned, which could have been assessed as their income, has been taken away by SEBI from them. Once the actual amounts of income earned through the violation of SEBI Regulation have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion.

We express no opinion about the finding of the CIT(A) that the sum of ₹ 2,20,76,842/- is to be assessed as business income because since we have held that on account of disgorgement the sum of ₹ 2,20,76,842/- is not to be assessed in the hands of the assessee. Once the amount is not to be taxed because it has already been recovered by the SEBI and there is no real income in the hands of the assessee, the question of the head under which it is to be assessed could not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t find any justification to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) in this regard upholding assessment of ₹ 2,20,76, 842 (out of Short Term Capital Gains of ₹ 2, 54, 93,060 shown in the appellant's return) as business income instead of as Short Term Capital Gains eligible to concessional tax treatment u/s.111A. - ITA No. 1390/Ahd/2010, ITA No. 1590/Ahd/2010 - Dated:- 7-8-2015 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri Narendra Si .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Assessing Officer to tax surplus of ₹ 34,12,218/- as per provision of Section 111A. 3. In the assessee s appeal, as per the concise grounds of appeal, following grounds are raised:- 1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing Ground No.1 of the appellant's appeal before him challenging the validity of the assessment order impugned before him, as being general in nature and not requiring any adjudication .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding assessment of ₹ 2,20,76, 842 (out of Short Term Capital Gains of ₹ 2, 54, 93,060 shown in the appellant's return) as business income instead of as Short Term Capital Gains eligible to concessional tax treatment u/s.111A. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in refusing to entertain Ground No.4 of the appellant's appeal before him after observing that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ring of the appeal. 4. Ground No.1 of the assessee s appeal, which is with regard to validity of the assessment order, was not pressed at the time of hearing before us; accordingly, the same is rejected. 5. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 of the assessee s appeal and the only ground in the Revenue s appeal are interrelated and therefore, they are being considered together and are being adjudicated as under. 6. The facts of the case are that, during the year under consideration, the assessee declared incom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e above claim of reduction from the short term capital gain on account of disgorgement. He also opined that the sum of ₹ 2,54,93,059/- offered as capital gain is liable to be assessed as business income. Accordingly, he assessed the sum of ₹ 2,54,93,059/- as business income. On appeal, the CIT(A) rejected the assessee s claim of reduction in the gain on account of disgorgement. He divided the capital gain in two portion; (i) the first portion of the capital gain, i.e., ₹ 2,20,7 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is in appeal. The assessee is in appeal against the non-allowance of reduction on account of disgorgement; and as an alternate claim, it was contended that the entire sum of ₹ 2,54,93,059/- should have been assessed as Short Term Capital Gain. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. We find that the Ground Nos. 2 & 3 of the assessee s appeal are covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Shri Monal Y. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rged the amount, though, the payment was made after the close of accounting year, and even after passing of the assessment order. But these payments related to same share transactions, which have given rise to the alleged income in the hands of the assessee. The appeal before the CIT(A) is a continuation of the original proceedings. Before the CIT(A), the assessee have already taken additional grounds of appeal on the strength of the SEBI order. Therefore, we find force in the contentions of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dulged in violation of SEBI Regulation while making investment in IPOs. However, whatever amounts the assessee had illegally earned, which could have been assessed as their income, has been taken away by SEBI from them. Once the actual amounts of income earned through the violation of SEBI Regulation have been disgorged by SEBI, ultimately no income has resulted to the assessee. Thus, applying the theory of real income and also relying upon the above decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, we are of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

we have held that on account of disgorgement the sum of ₹ 2,20,76,842/- is not to be assessed in the hands of the assessee. Once the amount is not to be taxed because it has already been recovered by the SEBI and there is no real income in the hands of the assessee, the question of the head under which it is to be assessed could not arise. Now, we revert back to the question with regard to the head under which the sum of ₹ 34,12,218/- is to be assessed. The CIT(A) held this sum to b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d number of transactions. I also appreciate the arguments that the Assessing Officer's contention about period of holding are not correct particularly in view of the fact that definition of short term capital asset in respect of shares and securities itself specifically provides that the period of holding would be less than one year. This itself suggest that the short period of holding is not the criteria to be considered as trading transactions. Apart from this, the section 111A also provid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version