1.   Delhi High Court in  CIT vs SMC Credit Ltd.: Classification of SHARE TRANSACTIONS LOSS: HELD

“It had been contended before the Tribunal, on behalf of the assessee, that the frequency of transactions indicated that the assessee was dealing with the shares on the trading account and that the nomenclature of the entries in the books of accounts was not conclusive with regard to the actual nature of transactions. On the other hand, strong reliance was placed on the orders of the Assessing Officer and that of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by the departmental representative. The Tribunal, after examining the records of the case and on a comparative analysis of the presentation of the accounts of transactions done in the earlier years as well as the year in question, came to the conclusion that there had been no change in the fact situation with regard to the presentation of accounts. It was also found as a fact that the assessee had significant frequency in dealing with the shares and that the same really constituted stock-in-trade though they were shown as investment in the books of accounts. It was specifically noted that in the year in question, there were more than one hundred transactions in shares in which the loss had been incurred. The Tribunal found as a fact that the loss was a result of a systematic activity in relation to shares and, therefore, it came to the conclusion that the loss claimed by the assessee should have been accepted as a business loss.”

(Click here for judgment)

  

2.   Kar High Court MB Ramesh vs ITO: SECTION 54:

Held for purpose of availing exemption under said provision it is must that transferred asset a constituted HABITABLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE and mere mud structure cannot be equated to residential house.

(Click here for judgment)

  

3.   Chander Kant vs CIT -P&H High Court Bank Inflated Stock: Adverse Decision

“The assessee has not disputed his signatures on the said statement. He has also not disputed that the said statement was prepared by the assessee for presenting it to the bank for obtaining higher credit limit. From the said statement and from the quantity of stock shown in the accounts, the difference was noticed, as the assessee has shown more quantity of stock in the aforesaid statement, which was to be presented to the bank. It was found that in case the quantity of stock in statement is at variance with the stock as shown in the books of accounts, the assessee has to be render the explanation. In the instant case, the only explanation given by the assessee is that a wrong date of 31.1.1990 instead of 16.2.1990 was put on the aforesaid statement. This explanation can not be accepted, being not satisfactory, and the aforesaid addition was made by the Assessing Officer, which has been rightly upheld by the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT, while recording a finding of fact to the effect that the addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement prepared and signed by the assessee for furnishing the same to the bank and on account of non-explanation of the said variation.”

(Click here for judgment)

      

What's New 

a.  Merely because for purpose of stamp duty, property is valued at higher cost, it cannot be said that assesses has made more payment than what is stated in sale deed  (Click for detail)

b.  Clarification regarding availment of CENVAT credit on input services  (Click for detail) 

c.    Govt plans amnesty scheme for firms that haven’t filed return  (Click for detail)

d.  Gratuity limit hike to Rs 10 lakh gets Parliamentary nod  (Click for detail)

e.  Direct Taxes Code likely to retain EEE  (Click for detail)

 

(Click here) for Team Voice of CA Chapters detail.

   

"A mistake is simply another way of doing things"

        

Thanks for your valuable time

"Voice of CA"

CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Founder - Voice of CA

Member  Central Council - ICAI  (Former Chairman - NIRC)

Mob : 9811080342, agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com

CA. Kapil Goel, Moderator-Direct Taxes, Mob:9910272806, cakapilgoel@gmail.com

CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator, sidhjasso@yahoo.com

CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA, Mob:9540022533, mukbansal80@gmail.com