Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 4811 
Join Channel 
