archives » CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (Bombay High Court)» Latest unreported judgements

Please click on the categories to the right to find what you are looking for. Click on this icon to download the file. You will need a PDF reader to view the files. You can download one for free from Foxit 1.8 MB or from Adobe 20MB.

If you are looking for judgements filed prior to January 2008, please click the respective links for: Supreme Court judgements, High Court judgements and Tribunal judgements.

(133.8 KiB, 891 DLs)

Download: gopal_purohit_shares_investment_dealer.pdf

Shares activity treated as investment in earlier years cannot be treated as business in subsequent years if facts are the same

 

The assessee was engaged in two different activities of sale and purchase of shares. The first set of transactions involved investment in shares in which the assessee took delivery of the shares. The second set of transactions involved dealing in shares for business purposes. The assessee was accordingly an investor as well as a dealer. The income from investment activity was offered as capital gains while the income from dealing activity was offered as business income. This position was accepted by the AO in the earlier years. In AY 2005-06, the AO took a different view and held that even the shares held on investment account had to be assessed as business income. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal (see 122 TTJ (Mum) 87). On appeal by the Revenue, HELD dismissing the appeal:

 

(a) The Tribunal has correctly applied the principle of law in accepting the position that it is open to an assessee to maintain two separate portfolios, one relating to investment in shares and another relating to business activities involving dealing in shares. Delivery based transactions were rightly treated as being in the nature of investment transactions giving rise to capital gains.

 

(b) The Tribunal correctly accepted the position that though the principle of res judicata is not attracted, there ought to be uniformity in treatment and consistency when the facts and circumstances are identical. The Tribunal has noted that the assessee has followed a consistent practice in regard to the nature of the activities, the manner of keeping records and the presentation of shares as investment at the end of the year in all the years and there is no justification for a different view being taken by the AO.

 

(c) The Tribunal applied the correct principle in holding that while entries in the books of account alone are not conclusive in determining the nature of income, it does have a bearing.

 

Note: The Tribunal’s order is reported in 122 TTJ (Mum) 87. See Also: Janak Rangwala 11 SOT 627 (Mum), Saranath Infrastructure 120 TTJ 216 (Luck) and J. M. Share & Stock Brokers vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) where similar views have been taken. See Also Circular No. 4/2007 dated 15-6-2007.


Related Judgements

  1. J. M. Share & Stock Brokers vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the assessee was a stock broker but it was consistently following the practice of holding some shaes as ā€˜stock in trade’ and other shares as ā€˜investments’ and the question arose whether the profits on the sale of shares held as investments constituted a capital gain or business profits,…

  2. R. B. K. Securities vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Even prior to the amendment to s. 43(5) by the Finance Act 2005 w.e.f 1.4.2006, dealings in Futures & Options and other derivatives products cannot be treated as speculative transactions as they are special kind of transactions, not involving purchase and sale of shares and consequently the loss…

  3. CIT vs. Lokmat Newspapers (Bombay High Court) 

    The argument of the Revenue that the term ā€œspeculative transactionā€ in s. 43(5) must be read into the provisions of s. 73 and that a business which involves actual delivery of shares would not constitute a speculation business cannot be accepted having regard to the deeming fiction created by…

Comments are closed.