Skip to content

Three Imp Verdicts On HUF, Shares STCG vs. Biz Profits And S. 80-IB(7) Profits

Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh (Supreme Court)
Important law on concept of “ancestral property” under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the formation of a HUF by the surviving members of the deceased explained
On a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 8 and 19 of the Act, after joint family property has been distributed in accordance with section 8 on principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants

 
DCIT vs. Mahender Kumar Bader (ITAT Jaipur)
In view of CBDT Circular No. 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016, if assessee has consistently shown shares as an “investment” and offered gains as capital gains, AO is not entitled to urge that the same constitutes “stock-in-trade” and assess gains as business profits on grounds that there were substantial and frequent transactions and motive was to earn profit and holding period of such shares was very short
Before us the moot question which is required to be decided is whether the income earned by the assessee on account of share is required to be treated as business income or required to be treated as short term capital gain. After the matter was heard on 11.02.2016, the CBDT came out with the Circular No. 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 in the following manner. In view of the circular, we have clearly noticed that the issue raised in this appeal stands fully covered by the Circular issued by the CBDT. Since the assessee has treated the securities as investment and not as stock in trade in all the years, therefore, in view of the CBDT Circular, the revenue is not permitted to take a contrary view in the present year and claimed that the security is stock in trade and, therefore, the profit/gain caused to the assessee be treated as business income. In our view, there is no merit in the contention of the revenue and is deserves to be dismissed in view of the circular.
 
Kumarakom Lake Resort Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Cochin)

80-IB(7): Amounts by way of rent and other misc items, though shown as “other income” in the books, constitutes “key revenue category” as per ICAI Guidelines and are “derived” from the business of the hotel

Thus it can be seen from the above that, rent received by the assessee of Rs.180,000/- from Heritage Shop which represents rental income from Curio Shop and of Rs.120,000/- for the space and amenities given to Kumarakom Water Transport Pvt. Ltd. will fall within the key revenue generation category of ‘Space Rentals’ and ‘Arcade revenue’ and ‘Housekeeping bill’ for a hotel industry. Revenue from staff mess of Rs.7,139/- will also fall within the key revenue generation category of ‘Food and Beverages’ for a hotel industry. Revenue from staff telephone of R.90,048/- will fall within the key revenue category of ‘Communication revenue (both telephone & internet)’ as per ICAI guidelines

Share this:

Twitter
Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading…