Case Law Details
Case Name : Pr. CIT Vs M/s Viksit Engineering Ltd. (Bombay High Court)
Related Assessment Year : 2008-09
Courts :
All High Courts Bombay High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Pr. CIT Vs M/s Viksit Engineering Ltd. (Bombay High Court)
Buying and selling of share in short span of time doesn’t changed character of capital gain as business income
High Court of Bombay in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-II v/s Viksit Engineering Ltd vide its ITA Appeal No:485 dated 26th November 2016 has held that buying and selling of share in short span of time doesn’t changed character of capital gain as business income.
Facts of the Case:
The Respondent in its return of income claimed short term capital gain of Rs.9.42 crores. He was called upon to show cause...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.


RIDER
Re. “Decision of this court” , since found out from eleswhere , refers to the decision in re. – CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit.
Random picks , for comment (:
“…….
Tribunal kept in mind the tests AS PROVIDED IN THE CIRCULAR ……”
“…Moreover, the impugned order of the Tribunal also in the present facts CORRECTLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT.”
“In the above facts, the view taken by the Tribunal on the facts IS A POSSIBLE VIEW. Hence, the question as proposed does NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW thus not entertained”
(FONT to focus)
REFER [2006]153 TAXMAN 126 (ART)
BUSINESS INCOME
SHARES/STOCKS – CAPITAL ASSET OR STOCK – IN -TRADE ? – A FRESH LOOK
In the opening para. therein, are referred to,- the CBDT’s instruction No. 1827 dated 31-8-1989, then followed by a fresh circular F. No. 149/287/2005-TPL,
Unclear reference made in the instant case is to which of the two circu;lars.
Further, so far as seen, there is no citation given , hence not known reference made is to which ‘ decision of this court’ on which the Tribunal is said to have correctly placed reliance.
Be that as it may, recommend to go through the detailed discussion of the subject matter, wprt interalia the legislative intent as borne out by the special definitions in the Act vide sec 2 (13) and (14) , respectively of the crucial terms ”business’ and ‘capital asset’. As stressed and substantiated more than adequaely, in that article, , the Tribunal’s view, as upheld by the HC in the instant case, might have to be agreed/ conceded, with no qualms, to be the one and only correct view ; not just a ‘possible vlew’ as opined by the HC.
courtesy