9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usum Ingale ORDER Per Bench: The assessee-trust trust has filed these two appeals for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 against order of ld CIT(A) dated 28.1.2008 28.4.2008, respectively. 2. Since in both appeals, effective grounds of appeal are identical and have identical facts, we heard these appeals together and decide the same by a common order as hereunder. 3. We take up appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 i.e. ITA No.2127/M/2008 as a lead appeal and, therefore, discuss the facts and same will apply mutatis-mutandis for the appeal for the next AY as far as applicability of the proposition and law are concerned. 4. In the appeal for the assessment year 2004-05, main issue involved is as to whether capital gain of Rs.33,45 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged U/s. 234C be deleted. 5. It is relevant to state that the assessee-trust received Rs.1,73,421/-,Rs. 53,923/-Rs.31,52, 342/- and Rs.47,164/- for the year under consideration under the heads dividend income, long term Capital gains, Short term Capital Gains and speculative gains respectively.AO treated the net PMS receipts,i.e.Rs.33.45 lakhs, as profits and gains of business and profession. 6. The assessee-trust is a discretionary trust. The trustees were part of the promoter/ shareholder group of Biddle Sawyer Group where in assessee-trust held shares. From Sept.2003 to May 2004 assessee-trust placed certain funds with portfolio manager. 7. During the assessment year 2003-04, assessee-trust had offered the income derived from P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fession (Paragraphs 15-16 of the order dtd.06.07.201).Following the said order ground no.1 is decided in part in favour of the assessee. 10. At the time of hearing, ld counsel for the assessee-trust submitted that Ground No.2 is not pressed for, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 11. Ground No.3 of appeal is in respect of interest u/s.234C of the Act, which is consequential and does not require any specific adjudication. 12. Now we take up appeal for assessment year 2005-06 being I.T.A. No.4124/M/2008. 13. Grounds of appeal are as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the additional Capital Gains arising out of sale of Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee-trust also made direct investment for purchase and sale of shares/units and had short term capital gain of Rs.1.09 Crores and long term capital gain of Rs.1.81 Crores and the department accepted the same as capital gain and the dispute is only in respect of capital gain to the assessee-trust in respect of transactions through Portfolio Manager. Ld D.R. did not dispute the above facts. 15. We have considered submissions of ld representatives of parties. Following the reasoning given by us while deciding the appeals of Manan Nalin Shah in ITA Nos.6166/Mum/ 2008, 2125/ Mum/2008 and 4126/Mum/2008 for the AY 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, vide order dated 06.07.2012,we hold that the profit to the assessee-trust in respect of transactions thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
