<?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>2016 (9) TMI 245 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331984</link>
    <description>Profits from share transactions depend on the factual indicators of trading or investment, including frequency, volume, holding period, source of funds, books of account and, above all, the intention at the time of purchase as shown by the assessee&#039;s conduct. A taxpayer may maintain separate investment and trading portfolios, but must still produce evidence that the relevant transactions were intended as investments. On the record, there was no material to show a shift from trading to investment, and the earlier treatment of the shares as trading assets supported the Revenue&#039;s case. The circular permitting two portfolios did not remove the need to prove investment intention, so the income was treated as business income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2016 11:41:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 245 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331984</link>
      <description>Profits from share transactions depend on the factual indicators of trading or investment, including frequency, volume, holding period, source of funds, books of account and, above all, the intention at the time of purchase as shown by the assessee&#039;s conduct. A taxpayer may maintain separate investment and trading portfolios, but must still produce evidence that the relevant transactions were intended as investments. On the record, there was no material to show a shift from trading to investment, and the earlier treatment of the shares as trading assets supported the Revenue&#039;s case. The circular permitting two portfolios did not remove the need to prove investment intention, so the income was treated as business income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>