Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/2329/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 2329 of 2009
=========================================================
DCIT
CIRCLE-5 BARODA - Appellant(s)
Versus
BELABEN
D SHAH - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
KM PARIKH for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 11/04/2011
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue is in
appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 5.9.2008 raising
the following substantial question for our consideration:-
“Whether,
on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate
Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of CIT(A) to
allow set-off of loss from share transactions against other income
without considering the fact that such investments were made
primarily to earn dividend income which is exempt from tax?”
2. Upon perusal
of the order and record with the assistance of the learned counsel
for the revenue, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the
decision of the Apex Court in the case reported in 326 ITR 1.
3. The assessee
had during the assessment year in question purchased and thereafter
sold shares in a short span of time. The assessee claimed loss on
account of difference in purchase and sale price of such shares. On
the other hand, the assessee earned the dividend income which was tax
exempted. This device was objected by the revenue. Issue ultimately
reached the Tribunal. Tribunal in its short impugned order relying on
the previous decisions upheld the assessee’s stand.
4. We need not
give detail reasons for upholding the Tribunal’s order in view of the
decision of the Apex Court reported in 326 ITR 1 (supra) particularly
when we find that section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was
introduced in the year 2002-03 and was, therefore, not applicable in
the present case.
5. The Tax Appeal
is, therefore, dismissed.
[Akil
Kureshi, J.]
[Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J.]
mrp
Top