9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business income. To begin with motive is something, which is locked in the mind of the person. No direct evidence as regards motive is possible. Motive can be inferred from the conduct of the person concerned but that is bound to remain an inference, which may or may not be correct. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the views expressed both by the CIT and the Tribunal for reasons expressed therein are a possible view. It is, therefore, not open to the revenue to contend that the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse - Decided against revenue. - ITA NO.117 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2015 - GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA AND ARINDAM SINHA, JJ. MR.S.B.SARAF,ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT MR.J.P.KHAITAN, SR.ADVOCATE FOR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alued either at market rate or costs in trade. We find no justification of the Assessing Officer to treat the capital gains arising out of which are short term as well as long term investments portfolio to treat the same as business income. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) to be inferred with. Therefore, question for consideration was whether the benefit on account of short-term capital gain and long-term capital gain was properly claimed by the assessee. The revenue was unable to find fault with the claim of the assessee. The revenue was not in a position to support the judgment of the assessing officer who refused to treat the same the way the assessee wanted for the following reasons:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proposition then it is for the revenue to show that such a finding is not possible in law. That was not even suggested. What remains then is a question of appreciation of evidence, which has already been done. No fruitful purpose is likely to be served by remanding the matter. We do not find any issue, which has remained unattended. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the judgment under challenge is not perverse. The judgment in the case of Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (1968) ITR 486 (SC) referred by the assessing officer does not assist the revenue because in that on appreciation of facts it was found as follows:- On the facts, that the appellant dealt with the shares of McLeod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
