Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2000 (3) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uine ?" The assessment year is 1984-85. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed a loss of Rs. 1,05,489 on account of loss on sale of shares. The Assessing Officer has referred the details of purchase and sale of the shares and made annexures in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer further found that there were two sets of share brokers---one set of M. L. Santhalia and Sew Karan Dhelia. The shares are of J. K. Synthetics Ltd., Tata Tea Ltd., Hindustan Aluminium and Gwalior Rayon Co. These shares were purchased by the assessee from M. L. Santhalia and the entire lot was sold to Sew Karan Dhelia. Another set of brokers consisted of R. Rameshwarlal and J. M. Choudhury. The assessee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed counsel appearing for the Revenue, submits that on scrutiny, the Income-tax Officer found that some shares are purchased and sold on the same date even some sales have been shown to a third party, though he did not receive the shares on that date. It further supports the order of the Income-tax Officer. Learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Khaitan, submits that they have not taken the ground that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse. The question which is based on the finding of fact should not be answered in favour of the Revenue if that finding is not challenged on the ground of perversity. He further submits, on the merits also, that the purchase and sale is not on the same date. Details are annexed in the assessment order. Tho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntract date Bill date No. of shares Amount Name of brokers (Rs.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ J. K. Synthetics Ltd : 24-11-1983 24-1-1984 2,100 1,02,480 M. L. Santhalia 24-1-1984 8-2-1984 2,100 91,518 Sew Karan Dhelia (-) 10,962 24-11-1983 27-12-1983 3,500 1,71,500 M. L. Santhalia 12-12-1983 9-1-1984 3,500 1,58,830 Sew Karan Dhelia (-) 12,670 Tata Tea Limited : 25-11-1983 24-1-1984 1,900 70,060 M. L. Santhalia 24-1-1984 8-2-1984 1,900 (-) 63,612 Sew Karan Dhelia (-) 7,448 Hindustan Aluminium Ltd. : 12-12-1983 27-12-1983 1,000 49,000 M. L. Santhalia 16-12-1983 9-1-1984 1,000 46....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t on the same date. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the purchase and sale of the shares are on the same date. We also notice a share transaction of the shares of Escorts Ltd. where the assessee claimed Rs. 60,490 loss. The relevant date of contract is December 15, 1983. The assessee received 4,600 shares on January 11, 1984, and it sold these shares on January 18, 1984 and the assessee received the payment against that sale on January 24, 1984. Therefore, seeing these details, it cannot be said that the purchase and sale are on the same date. It is true that the transactions are with some brokers, but in the share transactions, the purchase and sale are normally through some broker. Payment by account payee cheque has not been disp....