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

Home › All Judgements › Pine Tree Finserve Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

Pine Tree Finserve Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by shreesh — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 22, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 20, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
Mere non-introduction of interest-bearing funds is not sufficient to conclude that gains from sale of shares are not business income

The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 30th August 2013, after considering the Circular No.4 of 2007 dated 15th June 2007 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, observed that there are various factors such as frequency, volume, entry in the books of accounts, nature of funds used, holding period etc. which are relevant in deciding the true nature of transactions and no single factor is conclusive. Thus, mere non-introduction of interest bearing funds will not alone determine the nature of the transactions. The impugned order, after analyzing the statement of capital gains which were available before it, came to the conclusion that most of the shares have been sold within 30 days of its purchase and upheld the order of the CIT(A)… In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the above concurrent findings of fact which has not been shown to perverse or arbitrary.

Related Posts:

  • Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd vs. IAC (Bombay High Court) Section 40(3) of the Act bringing to tax land and building which is not used for business purposes by companies in which public are not substantially interested to tax under the Wealth Tax Act and leaving out those land and buildings which are used for business purposes by companies in…
  • CIT vs. L&T Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court) Mere using the words that there is concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income would not in the absence of same being particularized, lead to imposition of penalty. It is only when the specified officer of the Revenue is satisfied that there has been concealment of…
  • S. Rajalakshmi vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) The reopening of assessment u/s 147 on the basis of information in the form of observations of ITAT is on sound footing and which constitutes a tangible material for the purpose of reopening as the assessee did not file her return of income as required u/s 139(1) of the Act…
  • Pr CIT vs. Grasim Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court) We have for a long time, taken into account that many of these are fresh entrants to the bar and in due course, would learn the standard expected of an Advocate. However, to our disappointment, many of them are refusing to learn. Therefore, the CBDT could consider holding of a…
  • Pr. CIT vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) The proviso to Section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1st April, 2013 and therefore it would be effective only from Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the earlier assessment years. Where the Revenue urges that the money has been received from…
  • CIT vs. Viksit Engineering Ltd (Bombay High Court) Thus two port-folios one for "Investment" and other for "Trading". Besides for the earlier years the Revenue accepted the claim of short term capital gain. Thus the income has to be taxed as short term capital gain. We are of the view that respondent holding the shares for a short…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Datta Mahendra Shah (Bombay High Court) 

    On consideration of the above facts, the CIT (A) and Tribunal rightly concluded that compliance on the part of the assessee in terms of Instruction No.1827 dated 31 August 1989 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes laying down the tests for distinguishing the shares held in stock-in-trade…
  2. CIT vs. Hemal Raju Shete (Bombay High Court) 

    The contention of the Revenue that the impugned order is seeking to tax the amount on receipt basis by not having brought it to tax in the subject assessment year, is not correct. This for the reason, that the amounts to be received as deferred consideration under the agreement…
  3. Arvind Shamji Chheda vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The correct test to be applied is whether the partnership assets were converted to capital assets of the partners at the time of dissolution. This we find, was provided for in the dissolution deed itself which records in clause (3) … Arvind Shamji Chheda vs. CIT (Bombay High…
  4. CIT vs. Sambhaji Nagar Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd (Bombay High Court) 

    Only an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining to the head “Capital gains” as opposed to assets in the acquisition of which no cost at all can be conceived. In … CIT vs. Sambhaji Nagar Coop. Hsg. Society…
  5. CIT vs. Chemosyn Ltd (Bombay High Court) 

    In Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, the issue was to determine the year in which the property was transferred for the purpose of capital gains. In this case the issue is what is the consideration received for the transfer of an asset. No income is accrued or received of the value…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*