OCTANT INDUSTRIES LTD ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS KUSHAL SOFTWARE LTD AND OCTANT INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES LTD),ANDHRA PRADESH vs. ITO 4(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 725/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 November 2016AY 2008-093 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that gains from repeated share transactions were rightly treated as business income, not capital gains. The disallowance under Section 14A was also upheld due to lack of contrary material from the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2008-09. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal was decided ex-parte. The core issues involved the classification of gains from share transactions and a disallowance under Section 14A.

What were the issues?

Whether gains from share transactions should be treated as business income or capital gains, and the validity of disallowance under Section 14A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ C ” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 17.11.2016Pronounced: 17.11.2016

सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date of Hearing : 17.11.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date of Pronouncement: 17.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B R Baskaran, AM:

The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 08- 11-2011 passed by Ld CIT(A)-9, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the assessee has authorized Shri Anil Thakrar of M/s Anil Thakrar & Co., Chartered Accountants and the above said C.A firm has sought adjournment on earlier occasions. The notice sent by RPAD on the earlier occasion was returned unserved with the noting “left”. Hence the registry was directed to send the notice by RPAD to the authorised representative of the assessee. We notice that the notice has been duly served and the acknowledgement card has also been received back. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice, we proceed to dispose of this appear ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.

3.

The effective ground urged by the assessee relates to the assessment of gain arising on sale of shares as income from business as against the claim of the assessee to assess the same as Capital gains. The assessee is also contesting the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act.

4.

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the assessee has indulged in repeated transactions of purchase and sale of shares and hence the tax authorities did not accept the claim of the assessee to assess the gains under the head Capital gains, but assessed the same income of the assessee under the head Income from Business. On a perusal of the order passed by Ld CIT(A), we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the order passed by the AO by passing a reasoned order. No material was placed before us to contradict the findings given by the Ld CIT(A). Under these set of facts, we have no other option but to confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue.

5.

With regard to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act, we notice that the assessee has not furnished any material to contradict the decision taken by Ld CIT(A). Hence, we have no other option but to confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue also.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →