9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cable in the case in hand. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities in treating the assessee as a trader in share transactions. So far as the contention that the gains arising from sale of bonus shares and split shares be charged under the head “Capital gains”, we are unable to subscribe to the said contention also. Once the assessee has been treated as a trader, then the income arising from bonus shares, split shares etc. is also to be treated as business income only - Decided against the assessee. The assessee has agitated that by mistake and oversight an amount of ₹ 25,11,982/- is included in the closing stock as on 31.03.08. This plea requires factual verification by the AO. The AO is directed to verif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to as 'the learned Assessing Officer) in treating the gains arising from sale of shares as chargeable under the head Profit and gains of business or profession instead of Capital gains on the alleged ground that the Appellant is a trader in shares and not an investor. The Appellant prays that the gains arising from sale of shares be treated as chargeable under the head Capital gains since he is an investor in shares. (b) Without prejudice to Ground No. 1(a) above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering and upholding the Appellant's alternative contention that the gains arising from sale of bonus shares and split shares are chargeable under the head Capital Gains and not as Profit and gains of business or profes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income from sale of shares as business income as against capital gains as claimed by the assessee. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, during the year under consideration had shown short term capital gains of ₹ 1,91,83,705/- and long term capital gains of ₹ 16,93,88,051/-. The AO observed that in the earlier assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2007-08, the assessee has treated the share transactions as business activity and disclosed a net business loss of ₹ 3,70,14,763/- on trading in shares. The said return of the assessee was scrutinized under section 143(3) of the Act and the return disclosing net business loss of ₹ 4,02,07,118/- was accepted. However, during the year under considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are ought to be uniformity and consistency in treatment of income when the facts and circumstances are identical to the earlier years. The AO therefore treated the income from share transactions as business income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO observing that in the assessment year 2007-08 the assessee had himself treated the income arising out of sale of shares as business income. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Darius Pandole 2011 330 ITR 485 (Bom.). Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 6. We have heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Gopal Purohit is applicable in the case in hand. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities in treating the assessee as a trader in share transactions. So far as the contention that the gains arising from sale of bonus shares and split shares be charged under the head Capital gains , we are unable to subscribe to the said contention also. Once the assessee has been treated as a trader, then the income arising from bonus shares, split shares etc. is also to be treated as business income only. Ground No.1 of the appeal is therefore decided against the assessee. Ground No.2 7. Vide ground No.2, the assessee has agitated that by mistake and oversight an amount of ₹ 25,11,982/- is included in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
