9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion of law arises for consideration: "Did the Tribunal fall into error in upsetting the findings of the assessing officer and CIT (Appeal) that the amount of Rs.55,05,471/- determined by the assessing officer as business income of the assessee was liable to be treated as short-term capital gain?" The assessee, an individual, declared a sum of Rs.79,65,790/- for A.Y. 2007-08 which included sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipient of other sources of income and had never engaged in share transactions in the past. Consequently the solitary transaction could not be termed as her business income ? an expression which had wide connotations implying its continuance. It is contended by the revenue that the impugned order is in clear error because the Tribunal overlooked material findings of the CIT (Appeal) in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present transaction which yielded ? to a certain degree unnatural high levels of profit, the assessee was not engaged in any other share transaction so as to justify the finding that the amount in question was a business income. The CIT (Appeal) in his order very pertinently noted the following facts: - "i) The claim of the appellant that she had purchased shares (STT paid) in Oct. 2006 is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Ltd. vide transaction numbered 1016336. The sale of shares had taken place vide transaction numbered 1016574, 1016614 and 1016661 just after the purchase. The shares (STT paid) were sold within five days from the date of actual payment/ purchase and delivery. The holding therefore, is hardly for five days. The transactions detail Issued by the NSDL is enclosed here with as annexure-B. iii) Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reafter the shares appear to have been sold on 10.01.2007. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the finding that the transaction was a solitary one, is justified. The conclusion of the assessing officer and CIT (Appeal) that the profit derived was not a short-term capital gain but in reality a business perhaps a short-term one-engaged in by the assessee, in the given facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
