Smt. Sunita Oberoi v. ITO
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Capital gains - Chargeability -Genuineness of sale of shares doubted by revenue
AO observed that payment had been received by assessee on sale of shares from broker through his bank account, that most of transactions through said bank account were bogus. The entries found in bank statement by AO were originally shown as profit on account of transactions in shares and such profit was subsequently claimed as exemption under section 54F in return of income by assessee. The issue arose as to whether profit on alleged shares was assessable as income from other sources instead of as capital gains. Held: Addition was made due to failure for submittion of confirmations from share brokers by assessee and summons issued to said persons were not served and returned unserved and names and addresses of buyer to whom ultimately shares were sold through the broker were not known to assessee. Since, sale of shares by assessee was proved by contract notes and payment had been received from broker through his bank account, mere inability to filed confirmation from share broker and unsubstantiated statements of unconnected persons would not justify treating of such transactions as non genuine; therefore, profit on the sale of said shares was assessable as capital gains and not as income from other sources.
Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 45
A.Y.: 1995-96
Decision: In favour of assessee.
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Capital gains - Deduction under section 54F -Residential house vis--vis Commercial complex
Assessee had claimed exemption of capital gain arose on transfer of shares on the ground that she had invested the same in purchase of a residential property. However, AO found that she received rental income for the same property and at the time of inspection the property was found being used for commercial purposes only by her husband and further there was no other person staying in this block and using the house property for residential purpose. The issue arose as to whether assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54F. Held: When the house was located at a commercial complex it was difficult to accept that it was a residential house or it was used for residential purposes in the absence of any evidence on record in support of use of the house as her residence when other attending circumstances were against her and no documentary evidence to substantiate the claim was furnished like ration card, bank pass book, driving license etc. in support of her contention. Therefore, it was rightly concluded that property was not used for residential purposes and thus, exemption under section 54F was not allowed.
Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 54F
A.Y.:1995-96
Decision: In favour of revenue.