PAN EMAMI COSMED LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee genuinely effected the purchase and sale of shares and claimed LTCG as exempt. The AO wrongly computed the business income.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a loss on sale of equity shares as exempt, but the AO disallowed it during processing of the return. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the genuineness of the loss.
What were the issues?
Whether long-term capital gains on sale of shares are exempt under Section 10(38) and whether the AO correctly computed business income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SRI RAJESH KUMAR & SONJOY SARMA
order
: November 7th, 2023 ORDER
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, I.T.A. No.: 874/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pan Emami Cosmed Limited (Since merged with Midkot Investments Private Limited). Delhi [hereinafter referred to Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 28.06.2023 for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2018-19.
The only issue raised in the various grounds of appeal
is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order passed by the AO thereby not allowing long term capital gain on sale of shares being exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A).
3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income during the year on 09.10.2018 by claiming a loss on sale of equity shares of Rs. 2,66,49,388/- as exempt. However, while processing the return the said loss was not allowed and added to the income of the assessee by stating that by computing the income this has been reduced from the business income but has not been added as income from LTCG/other sources. It is pertinent to note that intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed and the adjustment was made without giving any opportunity to the assessee. Rectification moved thereafter was also rejected summarily. Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the facts in correct perspective directed the AO to verify genuineness of the loss claimed by the assessee and allow the same to be set off against the income from business and capital gain in accordance with law.
4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has genuinely effected the purchase and sale of shares on which it had earned LTCG of Rs. 2,66,49,388/- which was rightly claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. Since the said gain was credited in the profit and loss account while computing the income, the same was reduced from Page 2 of 4 I.T.A. No.: 874/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pan Emami Cosmed Limited (Since merged with Midkot Investments Private Limited). profits in statement of total income and the correct income was filed by the assessee and the LTCG was claimed exempt accordingly. In our opinion, the AO has wrongly computed the income from business and profession at Rs. 58,67,024/- instead of loss of Rs. 2,00,50,550/- as filed in the return of income by the assessee. In our opinion, the issue needs to be examined at the level of the AO as this involves the verification of facts and issues concerning the business income and loss on sale of shares. Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the same and allow the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of LTCG and also allow the loss resulting from the instant year to be carried forward to the subsequent years. We, therefore set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
More judgments on Section 10(38)
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Karan Dilipkumar Patel L/H of Late… vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi…ITA 353/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jay Patel, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-3(1), RaipurITA 684/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026