TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Background: A survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the premises of M/s. Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. (MSPL) and its director, revealing that they were providing accommodation entries for LTCG and business losses. The appellants, Shri Ratanchand J. Oswal and Shri Rishi R. Oswal, were found to be beneficiaries of these entries. They admitted to routing income through these entries to avail concessional tax rates and exemptions under section 54F of the Act.
Contention by Assessee: The appellants argued that there was no admission of the share transactions being bogus and that the 'admission' was made to purchase peace and avoid penalties, which were not honored by the Revenue. They relied on the Tribunal's order for earlier years, which found the transactions genuine, and argued against the extrapolation of findings to the current year.
Revenue's Argument: The Revenue relied on the admission by Shri Ratanchand J. Oswal and the modus operandi explained by Shri Mukesh M. Choksi. It argued that the transactions for the current year should be treated similarly to those of the preceding years, which were admitted as income from other sources.
Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal found the Revenue's inference reasonable, treating the transactions for the current year at par with those of the preceding years. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's argument of coercion was not credible, given the absence of any retraction of the admission. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's treatment of LTCG and STCG as income from other sources, dismissing the assessees' grounds.
2. Treatment of income from share transactions through other brokers as 'business income' instead of STCG:Contention by Assessee: The appellants argued that the transactions were genuine and should be treated as STCG, relying on the Tribunal's order for earlier years.
Revenue's Argument: The Revenue provided detailed findings on the nature of the transactions, including the number and volume of transactions, frequency, holding period, and utilization of borrowed capital, concluding that the transactions were in the nature of business.
Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal found the Revenue's findings consistent with the material on record, noting the systematic activity pursued with a profit motive, deploying capital and bearing business and financial risks. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's treatment of the income as business income, dismissing the assessees' grounds.
Conclusion: The appeals by the assessees were dismissed, and the Tribunal confirmed the assessment of the impugned income as business income and income from other sources.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
