Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)Late R.Krishnaswamy vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 November, 2013
The fact on the contrary is that the
aforesaid valuation was made by the auditor on the basis of the balance sheet for the
financial year 2002-03. The fact that no provision for diminution of value of these
shares during the financial year 2002-03 was made is a pointer, according to her, to
show that the assessee consciously did not do so and sought to pass on the
burdenupon the Revenue by the purported transfer from investment to stock in
trade. So that the business profit could be set off against the aforesaid losses in
investment suffered by the assessee.. She submitted that the ingenuity on the part
of the assessee resorted to in order to avoid to pay tax for the profits earned from the
business is apparent from the face of the record. Relying on a judgment of the
Madras High Court in the case of R. Krishnaswamy Vs. Commissioner of Income
7
Tax reported in 261 ITR 253, she submitted that the conversion into stock in trade
was not a normal necessary step. It was on the contrary an artificial step introduced
solely for the purpose of evading the liability to pay tax and for no other purpose.
Their Lordships of the Madras High Court in the aforesaid judgment held as follows :
1