Itxa/1093/2011 Of The Commissionerof Income Tax -4 Mumbai v. J.m. Shares And Stock Brokers Ltd
High Court
11 Jan 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1093/2011 Of The Commissionerof Income Tax -4 Mumbai v. J.m. Shares And Stock Brokers Ltd
Date of order
11 Jan 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/1093/2011 Of The Commissionerof Income Tax -4 Mumbai v. J.m. Shares And Stock Brokers Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: In this Appeal, the Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court. “(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon.
Decision: For the reasons stated therein, we see no reason to entertain this Appeal also.3Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1093 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai..Appellant.V/s.M/s. J. M. Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd. ..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Padma Divakar, for the Appellant.Dr. K. Shivram with Mr. A. R.Singh, Mr. Kirit Hakani and Mr. Parag, for the Respondent.
P.C:-
CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 11[th] JANUARY, 2013.
In this Appeal, the Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court.
“(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon. Tribunal was justified in holding that the loss arising from the sale of shares from the investment portfolio is capital loss ?
(b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon. Tribunal was justified in directing allowance of loss claimed by the Assessee as capital loss by holding that the Assessee was not a trader in shares but in fact an investor ?”
2Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent state that the questions raised in this Appeal are covered by the decision rendered today in the Respondent's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.394 of 2011. For the reasons stated therein, we see no reason to entertain this Appeal also.3Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
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.