What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the issue to the AO to decide afresh. The AO was directed to consider the CBDT circular, the cited tribunal decision, and any other evidence, while granting the assessee a fair hearing.

The assessee treated gains from purchase and sale of shares as short-term capital gains, while the AO treated it as business income. The assessee requested the issue be remanded to the AO in light of a new CBDT circular and a previous tribunal order.

What were the issues?

Whether gains on purchase and sale of shares should be treated as business income or short-term capital gains, especially in light of subsequent CBDT circulars.

Siddharth D Metha ( HUF) vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam, DR

Hearing: 26.10.2016Pronounced: 26.10.2016

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee on 28.8.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-35, Mumbai dated 23.6.2014 for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. In this appeal, assessee raised three grounds in toto. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the grounds raised in this appeal and mentioned that the only issue involved in this appeal relates to the treatment given by the AO as business income to the gains earned on purchase and sale of shares. Assessee claimed the same a short term capital gains. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the orders of the authorities are prior to the Circular No.6/2016, dated 29.2.2016 issued by the CBDT. It is the prayer of the Ld Counsel for the assessee before us that the issue may be remanded to the file of the AO to decide the same in the light of the said Circular read with the order of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Dr. P.S. Pasricha in ITA No.6808/M/2003 (2001- 2002), dated 11.1.2008. 3. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited Circular of the Board and the decision of the Tribunal (supra), we find, it is appropriate to remand this issue to the file of the AO to decide the matter afresh considering the above cited Circular as well as the decision of the Tribunal dated 11.1.2008 (supra) and other evidences, if any, in the matter. AO shall grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th October, 2016. (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 26.10.2016 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- 3. 4. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 5. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. सत्मावऩत प्रनत ////

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

SIDDHARTH D METHA ( HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 25(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments