Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › Prasad Agents vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

Prasad Agents vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 27, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (prasad_agents_expl_s_73.pdf)

Expl. to s. 73 applies to valuation losses as well

Where the question arose whether the Explanation to s. 73 (which deems the loss from trading in shares by a company to be speculation loss) can be confined only to cases where there is manipulation in shares of group companies and whether the loss arising on valuation of closing stock of shares is also covered, HELD:

(i) Though the Circular of the CBDT supports the interpretation that the object of the Expl. to s. 73 is to curb manipulation of group companies’ shares, the scope of the Expl. extends to all companies carrying on business in shares;

(ii) Though the Expl. refers to purchase and sale of shares and not to losses suffered on account of valuation, it applies to valuation losses as well as there is no difference between trading losses and valuation losses.

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Scindia HUF (Bombay High Court) 

    The issue of notice under s. 16 (2) W. T. Act {s. 143 (2) I. T. Act} is mandatory for reassessment proceedings. If notice u/s 16 (2) {143 (2)} is not issued, the assessment order passed u/s 17 {s. 147} is not valid.Read more ›
  2. CWT vs. Sona Properties (Bombay High Court) 

    It is not open to the WTO u/s 16A of the W. T. Act to call for the report of the Valuation Officer after the assessment proceedings are completed and use that report to commence proceedings for reassessment. The jurisdiction conferred on the WTO is limited to calling for…
  3. CIT vs. Vishnu Industrial Gases (Delhi High Court) 

    Where the department had not disputed that the expenditure was deductible in principle but was only disputing the year in which the deduction could be allowed HELD, castigating the department, that as the tax rates were the same in both years, the department should not fritter away its energies…
  4. Soul vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) 

    Though Instruction No. 1914 dated 2nd Dec 1993 supercedes Instruction No. 96 dated 21st August 1969, it clearly provides that demand should be stayed in “exceptional circumstances e.g., where the assessment order appears to be unreasonably high-pitched or where genuine hardship is likely to be caused to the assessee”….
  5. Snowcem vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Where an assessment is made u/s 115JA of the Act, an assessee is not liable to pay interest for non-payment/shortfall of advance tax u/ss 234B and 234C of the Act. CIT v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd 284 ITR 434 (SC) followed;
    Read more ›