Income Tax

Loss on investment w/o not capital gain, hence covered by monetary limits for appeal filing

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 >>

----------- Similar Posts: -----------
Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Jewellery purportedly received from grandparent under Will added as unexplained credits

Addition u/s 68 for jewellery purportedly received on death of grandparent under Will upheld. In a recent judgment, ITAT upheld…

1 day ago
  • bankruptcy

SC lays down tests to determine if a debt is financial debt or operational under IBC

Supreme Court lays down tests to determine whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt under IBC…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Commonality of directors of companies does not mean deposits received was bogus

Merely because directors of two companies were common not mean that deposits received was bogus and companies were shell companies…

2 days ago
  • ITAT

Application though named as rectification but if tax is not legitimate, it also touches merit: HC

Application though named as rectification but if tax imposed is not legitimate then it also touches upon the merit –…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of FMV

Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of current FMV to be further…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

AO was directed to serve notice of hearing through physical mode upon assessee 

ITAT directed AO to serve notice of hearing both through electronic and physical mode upon the assessee  In a recent…

2 days ago