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>Supreme Court affirms Tribunal decision on short-term capital gains assessment for business use.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Atma Ram Gupta (Individual)</h3> Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Atma Ram Gupta (Individual) - [2017] 392 ITR 12 Issues:Income tax appeal under section 260A challenging order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding short-term capital gains assessment for the assessment year 2009-10.Analysis:The appellant-Revenue appealed against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order concerning the short-term capital gains assessment for the assessment year 2009-10. The respondent-assessee, a director of private limited companies engaged in real estate business, sold land to a company where the assessee was also a director. The Assessing Officer considered the gain as short-term capital gains, but the assessee argued that the land was purchased for the company's use. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention, noting the transaction was recorded in the company's books. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal.The appellant contended that the sale deed was in the assessee's name, without mentioning the company, and argued insufficient evidence was provided. However, both appellate authorities found the land was purchased by the company for business purposes and accounted for in its books. The Tribunal highlighted the survey operation at the company's premises, revealing unaccounted payments and inventory of land transactions. The Tribunal relied on apex court judgments emphasizing the real beneficial owner over legal ownership.The apex court judgments clarified the concept of 'owner' in income tax provisions, emphasizing entitlement to receive income. They also emphasized dominion over the property and actual use for business purposes to determine ownership for depreciation claims. These judgments supported the assessee's position that the company was the beneficial owner, as evidenced by the transaction details and tax payments made by the company upon selling the land.In conclusion, the Tribunal's finding was based on evidence and did not raise any legal questions for review. The court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, ultimately dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.
TaxTMI 