Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Mere use of borrowed funds or the volume of share transactions did not change the character of shareholdings into stock-in-trade where the assessee consistently treated listed shares as investments and held them for more than 12 months. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that intention, consistency in treatment, and the surrounding facts govern classification of share transaction income. As the Assessing Officer relied only on the alleged flow of borrowed funds and did not make an objective analysis of frequency, holding period, intention at purchase, or book treatment, the gains were correctly assessed as capital gains. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) and treated both long-term and short-term gains as capital gains, not business income.
Mere use of borrowed funds or the volume of share transactions did not change the character of shareholdings into stock-in-trade where the assessee consistently treated listed shares as investments and held them for more than 12 months. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that intention, consistency in treatment, and the surrounding facts govern classification of share transaction income. As the Assessing Officer relied only on the alleged flow of borrowed funds and did not make an objective analysis of frequency, holding period, intention at purchase, or book treatment, the gains were correctly assessed as capital gains. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) and treated both long-term and short-term gains as capital gains, not business income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
