<?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>Capital Gains characterization upheld: unlisted preference shares treated as capital gains and revision under revisional jurisdiction set aside.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97129</link>
    <description>Revision under Section 263 failed because the Assessing Officer conducted a prima facie inquiry, considered documentary evidence and followed the binding CBDT Instruction treating transfers of unlisted shares as capital gains; the revisional order was therefore neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue. The contention that the assessee converted stock-in-trade into a capital asset lacked antecedent findings and could not be raised first at appeal, so the Tribunal rightly declined to entertain it. On facts-long holding period, single isolated sale, investment-intent recorded by board resolution and accounting consistent with investment-the surplus was held to be long-term capital gains, and all substantial questions were answered for the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:41:30 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:41:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=887748" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Capital Gains characterization upheld: unlisted preference shares treated as capital gains and revision under revisional jurisdiction set aside.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97129</link>
      <description>Revision under Section 263 failed because the Assessing Officer conducted a prima facie inquiry, considered documentary evidence and followed the binding CBDT Instruction treating transfers of unlisted shares as capital gains; the revisional order was therefore neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue. The contention that the assessee converted stock-in-trade into a capital asset lacked antecedent findings and could not be raised first at appeal, so the Tribunal rightly declined to entertain it. On facts-long holding period, single isolated sale, investment-intent recorded by board resolution and accounting consistent with investment-the surplus was held to be long-term capital gains, and all substantial questions were answered for the assessee.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:41:30 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>