{"id":13415,"date":"2016-04-18T17:34:12","date_gmt":"2016-04-18T12:04:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=13415"},"modified":"2016-04-18T17:34:12","modified_gmt":"2016-04-18T12:04:12","slug":"dcit-vs-mahender-kumar-bader-itat-jaipur-in-view-of-cbdt-circular-no-62016-dated-29-02-2016-if-assessee-has-consistently-shown-shares-as-an-investment-and-offered-gains-as-capital","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/dcit-vs-mahender-kumar-bader-itat-jaipur-in-view-of-cbdt-circular-no-62016-dated-29-02-2016-if-assessee-has-consistently-shown-shares-as-an-investment-and-offered-gains-as-capital\/","title":{"rendered":"DCIT vs. Mahender Kumar Bader (ITAT Jaipur)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Since the assessee has treated the securities as investment and not as stock in trade in all the years, therefore, in view of the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/info\/index.php\/cbdt-clarifies-law-on-whether-surplus-on-sale-of-shares-is-taxable-as-capital-gains-or-business-profits\/\">CBDT Circular No. 6\/2016 dated 29.02.2016<\/a>, the revenue is not permitted to take a contrary view in the present year and claimed that the security is stock in trade and, therefore, the profit\/gain caused to the assessee be treated as business income. In our view, there is no merit in the contention of the revenue and is deserves to be dismissed in view of the circular<\/p>\n<p>CIT vs. Karamchand Thapar &#038; Sons Ltd.<br \/>\n115 ITR 250 (Cal.)<br \/>\nTrupti Investment Co. vs. ITO<br \/>\n35 ITD 200 (ITAT Ahmedabad)<br \/>\nITA No. 605\/JP\/2013<br \/>\nDCIT vs. Shri Mahender Kumar Bader<br \/>\nCIT vs. Sugar Dealers<br \/>\n100 ITR 424 (All.)<br \/>\nCIT vs. Guest Keen &#038; Neetlefold Ltd.<br \/>\n115 ITR 205 (Cal.)<br \/>\nCIT vs. Manna Lal Nirmal Kumar Surana<br \/>\n264 ITR 116 (Raj.)<br \/>\nCIT vs. Simpson General Finance Co. Ltd.<br \/>\n230 ITR 222 (Mad.)<br \/>\nACIT vs. Khetan Kumar A Shah,<br \/>\n242 ITR 83 (Kerala)<br \/>\nAshoka Viniyoga Ltd. vs. CIT<br \/>\n70 ITR 381<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Before us the moot question which is required to be decided is whether the income earned by the assessee on account of share is required to be treated as business income or required to be treated as short term capital gain. After the matter was heard on 11.02.2016, the CBDT came out with the Circular No. 6\/2016 dated 29.02.2016 in the following manner. In view of the circular, we have clearly noticed that the issue raised in this appeal stands fully covered by the Circular issued by the CBDT. Since the assessee has treated the securities as investment and not as stock in trade in all the years, therefore, in view of the CBDT Circular, the revenue is not permitted to take a contrary view in the present year and claimed that the security is stock in trade and, therefore, the profit\/gain caused to the assessee be treated as business income. In our view, there is no merit in the contention of the revenue and is deserves to be dismissed in view of the circular.<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/dcit-vs-mahender-kumar-bader-itat-jaipur-in-view-of-cbdt-circular-no-62016-dated-29-02-2016-if-assessee-has-consistently-shown-shares-as-an-investment-and-offered-gains-as-capital\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13415","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal","judges-laliet-kumar-jm","judges-t-r-meena-am","section-57","section-67","section-399","counsel-rajiv-sogani","court-itat-jaipur","catchwords-business-profits","catchwords-capital-gains","catchwords-profit-on-sale-of-shares","genre-domestic-tax"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13415","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13415"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13415\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13415"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13415"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13415"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}