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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether shares held in an investment portfolio could yield capital gains, notwithstanding the assessee also maintaining a separate trading portfolio, and whether the Assessing Officer was justified in treating such gains as business income.
Analysis: The circular of the CBDT recognised that a taxpayer may maintain two portfolios, one for investment and another for trading, and that income from the two portfolios may fall under different heads. On the facts, the assessee had maintained separate investment and trading accounts, separate demat and bank accounts, and the accepted past practice showed that the revenue had earlier treated the two activities distinctly. The gains in question were found to have arisen from the investment portfolio and not from the trading portfolio.
Conclusion: The gains were rightly assessable as capital gains and not as business income; no interference with the Tribunal's view was warranted.
Final Conclusion: The revenue's challenge failed because the factual finding that the disputed shares belonged to the investment portfolio was upheld, leaving no substantial question of law for consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee maintains distinct investment and trading portfolios and the disputed transactions are found to arise from the investment portfolio, the resulting gains are taxable as capital gains and not as business income.