Loss on investment written off not capital gain and hence not covered by exception to monetary limits for filing appeal
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3667 (2023) (02) ITAT
In the instant case, the Revenue had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in allowing capital loss arising out by the written off of investment allegedly in the penny stock company.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the total tax effect involved in this case was less than the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeal by the Income Tax Department.
On the other hand the Revenue submitted that issue-in-dispute in the case involved was of penny stocks and therefore, appeals involving long term capital gain (LTCG)/short term capital loss (STCL) on penny stock, CBDT vide Circular No. 23 of 2019 has directed to decide the issue on merit as exception to the Circular No. 3/2018.
The Tribunal observed that the Circular No. 23 of 2019 mandates that wherever assessee has claimed bogus long term capital gain/short term capital loss on penny stock, in such cases, CBDT has directed to consider the filing of the appeal on merit.
The assessee submitted that the loss in the present case was arising from investment written off and not on account of capital loss arising from the penny stock and therefore said Circular No. 23 of 2019 was not applicable to the case.
The Tribunal observed that as per the grounds raised by the Revenue, CIT(A) had allowed claim of loss on investment written off. The Revenue had also accepted in the ground that long term capital gain or loss has not taken place in this case.
The Tribunal opined that the case of the assessee was not falling under the exceptions provided under CBDT Circular No. 23 of 2019.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed being covered by the monetary tax limit for filing appeal before the ITAT.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
No disallowance u/s 43B can be made if expenditure has not been not claimed by the assessee in Profit and…
Whether an assessee developing an infrastructure facility of Government is a contractor and ineligible for claim of deduction under Section…
Jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax to condone delay in filing Form No. 10A for Registration u/s…
AO was not justified in making addition by adopting method of extrapolation without bringing any material evidence in support -…
Court can not sit over comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers or to substitute its own view for the decision…
When quantum appeal stands restored to the AO, penalty can not be levied u/s 221(1) of the Income Tax Act…