2025 (3) TMI 2025

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....u/s 147 read with 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] for Assessment-Year ["AY"] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: "1. That the impugned re-assessment notice dated 30/03/2021 for A.Y 2015-16 is invalid and without jurisdiction as same been issued without prior mandatory approval of specified authority in terms of section 151(1) of the Act (un-amended Section 151) and therefore the consequential proceeding in form of re-assessment is invalid, without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 2. That the approval by specified authority mentioned u/s 151(2) for reassessment proceedings after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year is without jurisdiction and co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... report of directorate of investigation, Mumbai -6 was never provided to the assessee. Thus the impugned addition is made in violation of principle of natural justice. 8. That the impugned transaction is not covered under section 43(5) of the Act as Speculative Transaction as clause (d) to section 43(5) clearly provides that any transaction carried out in the FO nature at the BSE trading platform (BSE being recognized stock exchange) supported by contract note and ledger is a business transaction and any loss/profit arising from such transaction are to be treated as business gain/loss." 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case-records perused. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i) addition of Rs. 1,76,77,125/- on account of disallowance of loss from F&O transactions, and (ii) addition of Rs. 11,47,300/- on account of accommodation from shares of M/s Midland Polyland Ltd. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld first addition but deleted second addition, this way the assessee succeeded partly in first-appeal. Now, the assessee is aggrieved by the first addition of Rs. 1,76,77,125/- made by AO on account of disallowance of loss from F&O transactions and upheld by CIT(A) and has approached this Tribunal by way of next appeal. 4. Thus, the issue before us is the addition of Rs. 1,76,77,125/- made by AO and upheld by CIT(A) on account of disallowance of loss from F&O t....