<?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>2015 (5) TMI 794 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259920</link>
    <description>Income from share transactions was assessed as short-term capital gain rather than business income because the factual matrix, including the nature of the transactions, book treatment and purchase intention, supported the assessee&#039;s classification. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the appellate authority and Tribunal accepting the bifurcation between investment, business and speculative transactions were based on evidence and were a possible view. Frequency and volume of transactions, by themselves, were not decisive, and no material issue was left undecided. The finding that the income was short-term capital gain was therefore not perverse and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 794 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259920</link>
      <description>Income from share transactions was assessed as short-term capital gain rather than business income because the factual matrix, including the nature of the transactions, book treatment and purchase intention, supported the assessee&#039;s classification. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the appellate authority and Tribunal accepting the bifurcation between investment, business and speculative transactions were based on evidence and were a possible view. Frequency and volume of transactions, by themselves, were not decisive, and no material issue was left undecided. The finding that the income was short-term capital gain was therefore not perverse and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>