Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED CIT v. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co. Ltd. 2019 TaxPub(DT) 0273 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. BLB Cables & Conductors (P) Ltd. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5233 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Rungta Properties (P) Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1649 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. 2014 TaxPub(DT) 2646 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr. 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2149 (All-HC)
REFERRED ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 1727 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 0910 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Smt. Pushpa Malpani 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0630 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal & Ors. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2265 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Asstt. CIT v. Kamal Kumar S. Agrawal (Indl.) & Ors. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0632 (Nag-Trib)
REFERRED CIT v. Anupam Kapoor 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0500 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 2007 TaxPub(DT) 0875 (SC)
REFERRED Jaspal Singh v. CIT 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1867 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. v. CIT 2005 TaxPub(DT) 0905 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Anusayaben A. Doshi & Ors. v. Joint CIT 2002 TaxPub(DT) 1242 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1227 (SC)
REFERRED Sumati Dayal v. CIT 1995 TaxPub(DT) 1173 (SC)
REFERRED M.M. Khambhatwala v. CIT 1992 TaxPub(DT) 0900 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT 1962 TaxPub(DT) 0279 (SC)
REFERRED Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT 1959 TaxPub(DT) 0184 (SC)
REFERRED M.O. Thomakutty v. CIT 1958 TaxPub(DT) 0190 (Ker-HC)
 
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0136 (Kol-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 263

AO had made due enquiries into the claim of short-term capital loss incurred by assessee concerned. AO had called for complete details of transactions in concerned shares. Assessee complied with questionnaire issued by AO and furnished details like Name of Scrip, Date of purchase, Quantity, Rate, Mode of Payment, Date of sale, Quantity Sold, Rate, Date of Dividend declaration, Amount of dividend, STT paid, Capital Loss. After connsidering the same, AO took a plausible view and allowed assessee's claim. Accordingly, assessment order could not be held as erroneous and prejudicial on the ground of lack of enquiry.

Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - No lack of enquiry on AO's part as alleged by Pr. CIT as regards assessee's claim for short-term capital loss on sale of shares -

Pr. CIT held assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that there was lack of enquiry on part of AO in allowing assessee's claim for short-term capital loss on sale of shares which was reported to be suspicious by Investigation Wing. Held: AO had made due enquiries into the claim of short-term capital loss incurred by assessee concerned. AO had called for complete details of transactions in concerned shares. Assessee complied with questionnaire issued by AO and furnished details like Name of Scrip, Date of purchase, Quantity, Rate, Mode of Payment, Date of sale, Quantity Sold, Rate, Date of Dividend declaration, Amount of dividend, STT paid, Capital Loss. After connsidering the same, AO took a plausible view and allowed assessee's claim. Accordingly, assessment order could not be held as erroneous and prejudicial on the ground of lack of enquiry.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2014-15



IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT