ACIT 32(3), MUMBAI vs. RAJESH D. NANDU (HUF), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6848/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 March 2018AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by its own decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. The CIT(A) had also relied on this prior decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed long-term capital gains on share transactions as exempt, while the Assessing Officer treated these as business income. The assessee incurred short-term capital loss on other share transactions.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether gains/losses on share transactions should be assessed as capital gains or business income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: DR Assessee by :

आदेश /O R D E R

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12 contest the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-44 Rajesh D. Nandu (HUF) Assessment Year: 2011-12 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-44/ACIT 32(2)/ITA-65/14-15 dated 30/09/2016. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-25(2), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 24/03/2014 wherein the income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.12.62 Lacs after certain adjustments. The only dispute under the appeal is head of income under which Gain/Loss on share transactions would be assessable.

2.

During assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee earned Long term capital gain [LTCG] on shares for Rs.274.60 Lacs and suffered Short term capital loss for Rs.107.67 Lacs. The LTCG was claimed exempt under the provisions of the act. These transactions, in the opinion of Ld. AO, were assessable as business income. Resultantly the net gain of Rs.166.92 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same before the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 30/09/2016 where the Ld. CIT(A) relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the stand of the Ld. AO whereas the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the issue squarely stood in assessee’s own case by the decision of the Tribunal for AY 2010-11.

1.

Rajesh D. Nandu (HUF) Assessment Year: 2011-12 5. We have carefully perused the rival contentions and order of the Tribunal dated 02/03/2016 for AY 2010-11 where the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on similar issue. Since a view has already been taken by the Tribunal and Ld. CIT (A) has relied upon the same, our interference in the matter is not required. 6. Resultantly revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd March , 2018.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →