BALKRISHNA MOHAN HATLE,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1074/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel filed a letter withdrawing the appeal before the tribunal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous due to the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order for assessment year 2014-15. The appeal concerned the treatment of shares and securities as capital assets versus stock-in-trade, and the assessee's belief that short-term capital loss should not be treated as business income. The assessee had also failed to disclose these losses in the return.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's right to treat shares and securities as capital assets or stock-in-trade and the consequential treatment of capital gains/losses. However, the appeal was withdrawn before these issues could be adjudicated.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

For Respondent: Mr. Suresh Periasamy, DR
Hearing: 29/05/2023Pronounced: 31/05/2023

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15, raising following grounds:

“1) Circular 6/2016 dated 29th February 2016, gives the option to the assessee regarding the shares and securities held by him irrespective of the period of holding, to treat them either as capital assets or as stock P a g e | 2 Balkrishna Mohan Hatle in trade, without condition. Hence, I believe that Short Term Capital Gain/Loss cannot be treated as business income. The assessee had ignored to disclosed those losses in the Income Tax Returns, with truly a Bonafide belief that there were no incentives to the assessee by making a claim for the benefit of tax by disclosing it in the Income Tax Returns. Moreover, the case filed under CIT(A), was dismissed merely on the ground, that Recovery Order was uploaded instead of Assessment order.

2.

Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a letter dated 8/5/23 withdrawing the appeal. In view of the withdrawal of the appeal by the assessee, same is dismissed as infructuous.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →