Ita/921/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Deepak Iswarlal
High Court
25 Jan 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/921/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Deepak Iswarlal
Date of order
25 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/921/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Deepak Iswarlal, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The only question raised in the connected appeals filed by theRevenue is whether the income received in purchase and sale of sharesby the respondent-assessee is to be treated as long term capital gain oras business income.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN
MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931
ITA.No. 921 of 2009()
---------------------
ITA.614/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT
-----------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
COCHIN.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
DEEPAK WSHWARLAL L/H.OF LATE SRI.
ISHWARLAL M.SHAH ISHWARLAL & CO.,
D.H.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R1
SRI.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R1
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 25/01/2010, ALONG WITH ITA NO.996 OF 2009, & ITA
NO.1077 OF 2009, THE COURT ON 25/01/2010 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
....................................................................I.T. Appeal Nos.921, 996 & 1077 of 2009
....................................................................Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The only question raised in the connected appeals filed by theRevenue is whether the income received in purchase and sale of sharesby the respondent-assessee is to be treated as long term capital gain oras business income. We have heard Standing Counsel appearing forthe appellant and Senior Counsel Sri.Joseph Markose appearing for therespondent-assessee.
2. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders ofthe Tribunal, we notice that respondent was mainly engaged in tradingin goods and he was also investing in shares. It was found by theTribunal that assessee showed the shares' purchase as investments inthe Balance Sheet. The further finding of the Tribunal is that most ofthe shares purchased were sold within two to three years. Thecontention of the assessee is that shares held as investment and sold
after 12 months should be treated as long term capital asset.However, for shares purchased and sold within 12 months, assessee hasreturned income as short term capital gains. We do not find anyground to interfere with the Tribunal's order because an assesseeengaged in trading in shares or in other words in speculation businessin shares, is also free to invest on long term basis in shares and so longas shares are held as investment, the income therefrom on sale after 12months of holding has to be treated as long term capital gains and theTribunal rightly held so. However, we make it clear that profit returnedon sale of shares within one year of purchase should be treated asshort term capital gain. The Assessing Officer will make modificationin the assessment in respect of short term capital gains. For periodprior to introduction of specific charging provision for short termcapital gains, Section 111A of the Income Tax Act, the short term
capital gain should be assessed as business income. The appeals aredismissed but with the above finding on short term capital gains.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge
pms
P.S.GOPINATHANJudge
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.