TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clause. Further, it is stated that as authorized, the assessee had made mutual funds units during the financial year 2000-01 and sold the units during the same year. The trading in such units was done in the ordinary course of its business and as such revenue in nature. It does not amount to capital asset to be attracting Capital Gain Tax. Further, the assessee stated that the company has treated the transaction as revenue transaction and debited the loss incurred to profit and loss account as revenue expenditure and more particularly, in the earlier financial year also i.e. 2000-01, transaction was treated as revenue expenditure and the same was allowed by the AO. We find that the Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the Assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short, the Act ) are directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1275/MDS/2006 and C.O.No.154/MDS/2006, dated 23.01.2008, for the assessment year 2001-02. 2. Though they were two proceedings before the Tribunal, one at the instance of the Revenue, which was the substantive appeal and other proceeding was Cross-Objection by the assessee. However, no orders were passed in the Cross-Objection, since the Cross- Objection was filed only to sustain the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CITA), which held in favour of the assessee. Therefore, though there are two tax case appeals, the issue is one and the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the previous year relating to the Assessment year under consideration as 'revenue loss' in the computation of taxable total income. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CITA, who, by order dated 15.02.2006, allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee and held that it is a revenue loss. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed by the impugned order. 6. The short question would be whether there was evidence available on record to indicate that the intention of the assessee was to treat the holding as stock-in-trade. If such records were available and the intention was clear, then the assessee's case would be squarely covered by the decision of the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding used as a cinematograph theatre and suffered a loss in transactions of securities. In that year the company was allowed a loss of ₹ 63,938/- resulting from redemption of securities . In the assessment year 1954-55 the company was allowed a loss of Rs.26,078/- resulting from redemption of securities . In the assessment year 1955-56 the company was allowed a loss of ₹ 2,675/- resulting from the sale of shares. 7. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no evidence available to indicate that the intention of the assessee was to treat the holding as stock-in-trade. To consider the same whether there was any factual evidence given by the assessee in this regard, we turn back to the assessment order dated 05.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al investment, because, the assessee was a financial services company. However, the Memorandum of Association of the Company authorised to deal in shares and services. Furthermore, for all the previous assessment years and the subsequent assessment years, similar transactions have been held to be revenue in nature and for the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer did not agree with the assessee. Consequently, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), after taking into consideration of the Memorandum of Association of the Company, held that the assessee had acquired equity shares, which it held as stock-in-trade and out of which, a portion was sold incurring a loss w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
