https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279495 The High Court of Karnataka ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the retrospective application of the amendment to Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act should not impose undue hardship. The Court determined that the appellant, engaged in ayurvedic medicines, should not be taxed retrospectively for income derived from the sale of shares. Additionally, the Court classified the income from the sale of shares as not constituting business income, overturning the Tribunal's decision. The Court allowed the appeal, directing each party to bear their own costs. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:33:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279495 The High Court of Karnataka ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the retrospective application of the amendment to Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act should not impose undue hardship. The Court determined that the appellant, engaged in ayurvedic medicines, should not be taxed retrospectively for income derived from the sale of shares. Additionally, the Court classified the income from the sale of shares as not constituting business income, overturning the Tribunal's decision. The Court allowed the appeal, directing each party to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279495