TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Decides Tax Liability Deletion, Section 115JB vs. 88E, Mark to Market Loss</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Pashupati Capital Services Pvt Ltd</h3> The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Pashupati Capital Services Pvt Ltd - TMI Issues:1. Justification of deleting tax liability under section 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. Misdirection by the Tribunal in giving precedence to section 88E over section 115JB.3. Allowance of mark to market loss in Future & Options.Analysis:Issue 1:The Tribunal considered the appeal challenging the deletion of tax liability under section 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Tribunal relied on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Horizon Capital Ltd. The High Court found that the appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the justification of deleting the tax liability. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the specific case law. The High Court acknowledged the substantial question of law raised and admitted the appeal for further consideration.Issue 2:The second substantial question of law raised was regarding the misdirection by the Tribunal in giving precedence to section 88E over section 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. The High Court analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation. The High Court noted the specific provisions of section 115JB dealing with Minimum Alternative Tax and section 88E related to tax on income from securities transactions. The High Court found that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in giving precedence to section 88E over section 115JB. The High Court agreed that this issue raised a substantial question of law warranting further examination.Issue 3:The third issue involved the allowance of mark to market loss in Future & Options transactions. The assessee had booked losses on account of mark to market valuation of open positions in futures. The assessing officer and the Commissioner disallowed the mark to market loss. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision based on guidelines from SEBI and ICAI, allowing the mark to market loss as a crystallized liability. The High Court examined the Tribunal's reasoning and found it to be in line with the SEBI and ICAI guidelines. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the mark to market loss, concluding that it was a justified allowance based on the specific circumstances of the case.In conclusion, the High Court addressed all three issues raised in the appeal, admitting the first two for further consideration due to substantial questions of law and upholding the Tribunal's decision on the allowance of mark to market loss in Future & Options transactions based on SEBI and ICAI guidelines.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
