<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (4) TMI 42 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203191</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai held that gains from the assessee&#039;s purchase and sale of shares are to be assessed as short-term capital gains and not as business income. The Tribunal noted that in all other years from AY 2003-04 to 2008-09, except the impugned AY 2006-07, the AO had consistently accepted similar gains as STCG. Applying the rule of consistency laid down by the jurisdictional HC in Gopal Purohit, ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A) and directed the AO to accept the STCG as declared. The assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 16:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 42 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203191</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai held that gains from the assessee&#039;s purchase and sale of shares are to be assessed as short-term capital gains and not as business income. The Tribunal noted that in all other years from AY 2003-04 to 2008-09, except the impugned AY 2006-07, the AO had consistently accepted similar gains as STCG. Applying the rule of consistency laid down by the jurisdictional HC in Gopal Purohit, ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A) and directed the AO to accept the STCG as declared. The assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>