Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/16/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Itxa/16/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 13 Mumbai v. Dinesh B. Shah

High Court 22 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/16/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 13 Mumbai v. Dinesh B. Shah
Date of order
22 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itxa/16/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 13 Mumbai v. Dinesh B. Shah, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: DATED : 22ND JULY, 2011 P.C. :- 1.The question of law raised by the revenue in this appeal reads thus:- " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that short term capital loss of Rs.42,78,205/- and long term capital loss of Rs.28,22,211/- is the...

Decision: The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.16 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. Dinesh B. Shah ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. PDS Legal for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 22ND JULY, 2011 P.C. :- 1.The question of law raised by the revenue in this appeal reads thus:- " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that short term capital loss of Rs.42,78,205/- and long term capital loss of Rs.28,22,211/- is the business loss ignoring the fact that the in the balance sheet the share transaction is shown as investment and not as stock-in-trade ? The ITAT in para 4 of its judgment has held that the share transaction entered into by the assessee were small compared to the construction activities which were its main business and that shares had been purchased out of its own funds. The CIT(A) as well as ITAT have recorded finding of fact that the share transactions were investment activities and not trading transactions, therefore, the loss arising out the said transaction were liable to be assessed either as short term capital loss and long term capital loss. The decision of the ITAT is based on finding of fact and no question of law arises from the order of ITAT. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan