Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal affirms investor status, allows Long Term Capital Loss from off-market share transactions</h1> <h3>ITO-25 (3) (4), Mumbai Versus Minal Bharat Patel</h3> ITO-25 (3) (4), Mumbai Versus Minal Bharat Patel - TMI Issues Involved:1. Treatment of Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) as business income.2. Deletion of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) claimed from off-market share transactions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Treatment of Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) as Business Income:The core issue revolves around whether the STCG of Rs.12,18,961/- from the sale of shares should be treated as business income or as capital gains. The assessee, a high net worth individual with a net worth of Rs.135.20 crores and investments in shares amounting to Rs.107.78 crores, claimed STCG on the sale of shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this STCG as business income, citing high volume, frequency, and continuity of transactions. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] reversed this decision, treating the assessee as an investor.The Tribunal noted that the assessee's substantial investments in shares and the historical acceptance of the assessee's status as an investor by the department should not have been disturbed. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of consistency, referencing past assessment years where the assessee's status as an investor was accepted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO's yardstick was erroneous and that the assessee's intention in buying and selling shares was that of an investor. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground.2. Deletion of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) Claimed from Off-Market Share Transactions:The second issue pertains to the LTCL of Rs.4.12 crores claimed by the assessee from off-market share transactions. The AO disallowed this loss, asserting that the shares were sold in off-market transactions to parties whose demat accounts were managed by a share-broking company where the assessee was a director. The AO deemed these transactions as bogus, arguing that if the shares were sold through a stock exchange, the LTCL would not have been carried forward.The Tribunal, however, noted that off-market transactions are recognized and permitted, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Smt. Jamnadevi Agarwal, which validated off-market transactions if the prices were in line with market rates. The Tribunal found no prohibition against off-market sales and highlighted that the AO had accepted similar transactions in subsequent assessment years. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's objections were unfounded and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the LTCL claim. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground as well.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The assessee's STCG was rightly treated as capital gains, and the LTCL from off-market transactions was correctly allowed. The ruling emphasized the principles of consistency and the legitimacy of off-market transactions within the legal framework.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found