<?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>2017 (8) TMI 186 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346128</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that the loss incurred on sale and purchase of shares was due to error trade and not speculative in nature. The Court emphasized the distinction between error trade and speculative activities in share transactions, affirming that losses arising from error trades conducted on behalf of clients should be considered as business losses. The judgment was based on the genuineness of the transactions and the nature of the assessee&#039;s business activities, supported by legal precedents from other High Courts. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law was found to arise.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 186 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346128</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that the loss incurred on sale and purchase of shares was due to error trade and not speculative in nature. The Court emphasized the distinction between error trade and speculative activities in share transactions, affirming that losses arising from error trades conducted on behalf of clients should be considered as business losses. The judgment was based on the genuineness of the transactions and the nature of the assessee&#039;s business activities, supported by legal precedents from other High Courts. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law was found to arise.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>