As per Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011 appeal before Tribunal can be filed where the tax effect exceeds the monetary limit of Rs. 3 lakhs. However, considering the similar situation where tax limits were modified by the CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2008 the jurisdictional High Court in Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) 318 ITR 149 held that the circular will be applicable to the cases pending before the court either for admission or for final disposal. In view of the order of the jurisdictional High Court we hold that Instruction No. 3 dated 09.02.2011 is applicable for the appeal preferred by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on the issue of tax effect involved

While s. 54EC is an exemption provision which exempts capital gains and takes them outside the purview of chargeable “capital gains”, s. 74 deals with the carry forward and set off of loss under the head “capital gains”. The stage at which set off of carried forward long term capital loss is to be given is subsequent to the stage at which income under the head capital gains is computed and deduction u/s 54EC is to be given in the course of the latter. Accordingly, s. 54EC deduction has to be given before set-off of losses

On facts, as the assessee had engaged a portfolio manager to look after its’ investments and all decisions to buy and sell were taken by the portfolio manager and not by the asessee, the assessee cannot be called a “dealer”

Though, as held in CIT vs. Bharat Ruia, derivatives transactions, prior to the amendment to s. 43(5) w.e.f. AY 2006-07, are “speculative transactions” and the losses suffered therefrom are “speculative losses”, the question whether they are eligible for set-off has to be determined as per the law prevailing in the year of set-off. As in the year of set-off, derivatives transactions are not, pursuant to the amendment to s. 43(5), treated as “speculative transactions”, the losses incurred prior to the amendment have to be treated as normal business losses and are eligible for set-off against all business income in accordance with s. 72 (Shreegopal Purohit 33 SOT 1 distinguished)

While in principle, comparables having an abnormal difference of turnover and distorted operating profits have to be excluded for determining the ALP, the claim that as the assessee revenue is about Rs. 20 crores, comparables having more than 50 crores and less than 5 crores of turnover should be excluded is not acceptable because no specific fact has been brought on record to show that due to the difference in turnover the comparables become non-comparables. It is accepted economic principle and commercial practice that in highly competitive market condition, one can survive and sustain only by keeping low margin but high turnover. Thus, high turnover and low margin are necessity of the highly competitive market to survive. Similarly, low turnover does not necessarily mean high margin in competitive market condition. Therefore, unless and until it is brought on record that the turnover of such comparables has undue influence on the margins, it is not the general rule to exclude the same that too when the comparables are selected by the assessee itself

Though s. 153C confers jurisdiction if the AO is “satisfied” that “documents” seized belong to a person other than the person referred to in s. 153A so as to be able to assess that other person, the document must have prima facie incriminating information. The document seized must not only be a ‘speaking one’ but also be prima facie ‘incriminating one’ for attracting s.153C. If the impugned documents merely contain the notings of entries which are already recorded in the books of account or subjected to scrutiny of the AO in the past in regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, such document cannot be said to be containing the incriminating information so as to confer jurisdiction u/s 153C.

Though the computation of s. 14A disallowance was not made, the figures of dividend and interest were stated in the P&L A/c. Even the tax auditors did not state that s. 14A disallowance should be made. As there is no allegation by the AO that there was collusion between the auditor and the assessee to ignore s. 14A, it cannot be said that the explanation was not bona fide. Further, as Rule 8D was not enacted at the time, segregation of expenditure relatable to tax-free income would be disputable and lead to bona fide difference in opinion. So, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied

The question whether the surplus on the sale of shares is to be assessed as capital gains (short term or long term) or as business income has to be decided according to the cumulative effect of several facts and circumstances such as (a) the intention of the assessee, (b) the nature of the commodity sold, (c) whether the assessee has used his own funds or borrowed funds, (d) the treatment given to the asset in the books of account, (e) the consistent stand taken by the revenue authorities in respect of the sale proceeds of the asset in the earlier years, (f) the frequency and volume of the transactions, (g) the period of holding the shares and (h) whether the assessee took or gave delivery of the shares

Transfer Pricing principles on use of multi-year data, adjustment to operating profits & +/- 5% adjustment

The claim regarding “business loss” cannot be entertained because, though the CIT (A) has dealt with the issue, there is no specific ground. The claim is also not maintainable under Rule 27 since that applies only to a Respondent in the appeal