TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in re-fixing the appeal for fresh hearing and whether the earlier oral pronouncement barred such course. (ii) Whether loss from trading in shares was to be treated as speculation loss under Explanation to section 73 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether business loss could be ignored while determining the composition of gross total income for the exception in that Explanation.
Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in re-fixing the appeal for fresh hearing and whether the earlier oral pronouncement barred such course.
Analysis: Rule 34 and Rule 35 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 require a written, signed and dated order before communication, so an oral pronouncement during hearing does not by itself constitute the Tribunal's final order. Even assuming such pronouncement had some procedural effect, the Tribunal retained power under section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to re-fix the matter for clarification before passing the written order, provided the affected party was heard. The record showed that adequate opportunity of hearing was given, and the course adopted was treated as a permissible exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection failed and the re-hearing was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether loss from trading in shares was to be treated as speculation loss under Explanation to section 73 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether business loss could be ignored while determining the composition of gross total income for the exception in that Explanation.
Analysis: The Tribunal applied the principle that binding higher forum decisions govern subordinate forums, and followed the view that the character of gross total income for the purposes of Explanation to section 73 must be tested on the basis of the absolute figures of the relevant components, not by treating loss as a negative figure to be ignored. It held that business loss is not excluded from the comparison merely because it is a loss, and that the exception in the Explanation is not attracted by comparing income with its sign reversed. The Tribunal relied on the reasoning in earlier coordinate and Special Bench decisions and rejected the assessee's contention that any positive income, however small, would automatically prevail over a larger business loss.
Conclusion: The share trading loss was rightly treated as speculation loss and the assessee did not qualify for the exception in Explanation to section 73.
Final Conclusion: The assessee's challenge failed both on the procedural objection and on the substantive tax issue, and the assessment view was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of Explanation to section 73 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the test is the comparison of the absolute figures of the relevant income components in gross total income, and business loss cannot be disregarded by treating it as a negative figure.
TaxTMI 
