9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rebut the findings rendered by the CIT and the Tribunal - there was no borrowal of funds by the assessee and shares were purchased out of his own funds is borne out by records and the Tribunal were right in treating the income from sale of shares as capital gains – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against revenue. - T.C. (A). No. 810 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2014 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. T. Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel ORDER (Delivered by R. Sudhakar, J.) The Revenue has filed this appeal calling in question the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 7.2.2013 made in I.T.A.No.1029/Mds/2011 for the assessment year 2006-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been only an investor all along and the transactions in such investments have been shown under capital gains in all the earlier years the magnitude of the transactions are not voluminous and even if they are, the same cannot be a ground for treating the activity as business in the place of investment, the transactions are delivery based transaction and no borrowed funds were used for making such investments and the plethora of decisions quoted support his plea that the income from the Long Term Capital Gains/Short Term Capital Gains should be taxed under these heads only and not treated as business income. 5.1 There is no dispute about the fact the appellant is indeed dealing in investment in shares in the past for many years and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share broker nor he is having a registration with any Stock Exchange. More over some of the scripts have been held for more than 5 years and it is not the case of the assessing officer that there were any derivative transactions by the appellant nor it is the case of the assessing officer that there were transactions without any delivery. The intention of the appellant cannot be read from his mind but it reflects in his conduct, the way he treats the transactions. The appellant has not borrowed any money for investing in shares and used his own surplus funds and these facts are borne out on record. Yet another aspect, as rightly stressed by the learned Authorised Representative is the fact that the appellant has received substantial dividen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
