DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. J.M. FINANCIAL LTD, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the transaction of sale of shares was genuine and not a colourable device for tax avoidance. The losses arising from the sale of shares were allowed to be set off against capital gains.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a holding company, sold shares of its joint venture company. The Assessing Officer treated the capital gain as business income, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal initially remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication in light of a Supreme Court decision.
What were the issues?
Whether the gain on sale of shares is capital gain or business income, and whether losses on sale of shares can be set off against capital gains.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 55(2)(aa)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO741 citing154 ITR 148 · 1985 · SC
- Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan691 citing263 ITR 706 · 2003 · SC · Read judgment
- India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India295 citing341 ITR 1 · 2012 · SC
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sakarlal Balabhai23 citing69 ITR 186 · 1968 · HC
- ACIT v. Biraj Investment Pvt. Ltd.18 citing210 Taxmann 418 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
- MEDISALES LTD. v. DCIT5 citing304 ITR 276 · 2008 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY S.
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER : MS PADMAVATHY S. (AM)
These cross appeals by the assesse and the Revenue are against the order of the Commisioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai (in short, „the CIT(A)‟) dated 30/04/2015 for assessment year 2008-09. 2. The assessee is a holding company and has made in
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026