G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LLP, (FORMERLY M/S. G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LTD), SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the capital gains should be treated as capital gains and not business income, based on the assessee's consistent treatment and supporting case law. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the amount of exempt income earned.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared capital gains on sale of shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these gains as business income, and the CIT(A) upheld this. A common issue in both assessment years was the disallowance under Section 14A.
What were the issues?
Whether gains from sale of shares should be treated as capital gains or business income, and the extent of disallowance permissible under Section 14A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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.
- CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd.98 citing82 ITR 586 · 1971 · SC
- Investment Ltd. v. CIT85 citing77 ITR 533 · 1970 · SC
- 41 citing
- Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. CIT36 citing66 ITR 473 · 1968 · SC · Read judgment
- Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT26 citing73 ITR 652 · 1969 · SC
- Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. v. DCIT14 citing41 Taxmann.com 251 · 2014
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH
PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : These two appeals are by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad. In the AY. 2009-10, there was an issue in treating the capital gains as ‘business income’, whereas in both the assessment years, the common issue is with reference to disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act [Act]. Since the issues are common, these appeals are heard together and decided by this common order.
:- 2 -: ITA Nos. 832 & 833/Hyd/2016
Issue of treating capital gains as business income:
This issue arises in AY. 2009-10. Assessee has declared Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 1,89,980/- on sal
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.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026