9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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.2126/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 ₹ 1.04 Crores arising out of sale of Shares, Units and Securities through Portfolio Management Services(PMS)is to be assessed under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee further prays that interest charged U/s. 234C be deleted. 5. It is relevant to state that the assessee-HUF received ₹ 3,85,769/-, ₹ 48,293/- ₹ 79,20,342/- and ₹ 29,500/- 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. ₹ 1.04 Crores, as profits and gains of business and profession. 6. The assessee-HUF was a partner in one of the partnership firms which was engaged in the business of indenting agent. From June, 2001 to August, 2003 assessee-HUF placed certain funds with portfolio manager. 7. During the assessment year 2003-04, assessee-HUF had offered the incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... head income from business or profession (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-HUF 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.4125/M/08. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al gain' unlike for A.Y.2003-04.He further submitted that for A.Y. 2005-06. Assessee-HUF also made direct investment for purchase and sale of shares/units and had short term capital gain of ₹ 30.9 lakhs and long term capital gain of ₹ 32.15 lakhs and the department accepted the same as capital gain and the dispute is only in respect of capital gain to the assessee-HUF 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
