<?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 (10) TMI 2746 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278181</link>
    <description>Profit from share transactions was treated as capital gains from investment activity, not business income, because the determining factor was the assessee&#039;s intention at the time of acquisition and holding, assessed from surrounding facts and conduct. The Tribunal relied on delivery-based dealings, separate treatment of share transactions from other business activities, use of own funds, receipt of dividend, and maintenance of separate portfolios. It also noted that the number of scrips or transaction frequency alone was insufficient to establish trading activity, and it did not accept the lower authorities&#039; emphasis on dividend and average holding period. The resultant income was therefore not assessable as business income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2019 06:58:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=553295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2746 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278181</link>
      <description>Profit from share transactions was treated as capital gains from investment activity, not business income, because the determining factor was the assessee&#039;s intention at the time of acquisition and holding, assessed from surrounding facts and conduct. The Tribunal relied on delivery-based dealings, separate treatment of share transactions from other business activities, use of own funds, receipt of dividend, and maintenance of separate portfolios. It also noted that the number of scrips or transaction frequency alone was insufficient to establish trading activity, and it did not accept the lower authorities&#039; emphasis on dividend and average holding period. The resultant income was therefore not assessable as business income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278181</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>