The C.i.t. Mumbai City-Vi v. Mr. P.s. Sahadevan, For The
High Court
29 Jan 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The C.i.t. Mumbai City-Vi v. Mr. P.s. Sahadevan, For The
Date of order
29 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The C.i.t. Mumbai City-Vi v. Mr. P.s. Sahadevan, For The, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal.
Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the loss (-2-) incurred by the assessee in the course of its business of dealing in shares cannot be treated as speculation loss within the meaning of explanation to S.73?
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
(-1-)
MGN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.47 OF 2001
The C.I.T. Mumbai City-VI....Appellant
Vs.
Maansi Trading Pvt. Ltd. .Respondent
Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant
Mr.J.D. Mistry with Mr. Raj Darak, for the
Respondent
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE,JJ.DATED: 29TH JANUARY,2008
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE,JJ.
DATED: 29TH JANUARY,2008
P.C.:
P.C.:
. This Appeal was preferred on the following
questions:-
a. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
justified in law in holding that the loss
incurred by the assessee in the purchase and
sales of shares cannot be treated as
speculation loss and has to be treated as
regular business loss, which is adjusted
against the order income u/s.70 & 71 of I.T.
Act?
b. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
justified in law in holding that the loss
(-2-)
incurred by the assessee in the course of
its business of dealing in shares cannot be
treated as speculation loss within the
meaning of explanation to S.73?
The Tribunal relying on its own decision for the
assessment year 1987-88 held that the loss incurred
by the assessee on purchase and sale of shares
cannot be treated as speculation loss, but has to be
treated as regular business loss to be adjusted
against other income under Section 73 of the I.T.
Act. The Tribunal then held that they are of the
opinion that this is a case where explanation to
Section 73 does not apply and accordingly allowed
the Appeal.
. The explanation to Section 73 reads as
under:-
"Where any part of the business of a company
other than a company whose gross total
income consists mainly of income which is
chargeable under the heads "Interest on
securities", "Income from House property",
"Capital gains" and "Income from other
sources" or a company the principal business
of which is the business of banking or the
granting of loans and advances consisting in
(-3-)
the purchase and sale of shares of other
companies, such company shall, for the
purposes of this section, be deemed to be
carrying on a speculation business to the
extent to which the business consists of the
purchase and sale of such shares."
From the facts on record it would be clear that the
income of the assessee is under the heads "loss of
business" and "other sources". The explanation sets
out that if the business of a company consists in
the purchase and sale of shares of other companies,
such company shall, for the purposes of the Section
be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business
to the extent to which the business consists of the
purchase and sale of shares. The explanation
further provides that this business must be a
business other than of a company whose gross total
income consists mainly of income which is chargeable
under the heads "Interest on securities", "Income
from House property", "Capital gains" and "Income
from other sources".
2. Considering the above in our opinion the
Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion which
it arrived at. Consequently there is no merit in
this Appeal. Appeal accordingly dismissed.
(-4-)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, 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.