9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onia Kumar, Sr DR For The Assessee : Shri S.N. Soparkar, AR ORDER PER BENCH : These four appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad of even dated 29.11.2010 for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 in respect of two different assessees and the present cross objection is presented at the instance of assessee in appeal of the Revenue, i.e., ITA No. 2760/Ahd/2011 in Assessment Year 2008-09. These appeals and cross-objection involve common issues, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No.1050/Ahd/2011 : AY 2007-08: By Revenue Assessee : Shri Ashish N. Soparkar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to by the assessee during the year the assessee was regularly and systematically purchasing and selling shares/units of mutual funds to earn profit vi. The purchase and sale of shares was done with a motive of earning a profit rather than to derive income by way of dividend. vii. The transactions entered into by the assessee are in the nature of commercial transactions entered into with a view to earn profits viii. Not only were the transactions in large numbers but were carried out in a planned, systematic and organized manner. 2.2 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of the assessee and having considered the same, the CIT(A) has granted relief to the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A), after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and moreover, relying the ratio of decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Smt. Divyaben C. Shah in Tax Appeal No.104 105 of 2001 and also in view of the CBDT Circular No.4/2007 dated 15.06.2007, rightly held that the assessee cannot be said to have been trading in shares. He accordingly rightly directed the Assessing Officer to accept the impugned amounts returned by the assessee under the head STCG and LTCG, as the case may be. Similar view has been taken by Ahmedabad A Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Raja Industries vs. ACIT in IT(SS)A Nos. 141 146/Ahd/2012 for AY 2009-10, wherein the Tribunal held as under:- 22. We have heard the riv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ascertaining profit from sale of shares, as capital gains. 2.5 In view of the factual and legal discussion above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) who has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to accept the impugned amounts returned by the assessee under the head the head Long Term Capital Gain and Short Term Capital Gains. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue. ITA No.2759/Ahd/2011 : AY 2008-09: By Revenue Assessee : Shri Ashishbhai N. Soparkar 3. In this Revenue s appeal, following grounds were raised:- 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to treat the income of ₹ 23,97,656/- from sale o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Income Tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4.1 The issue raised in this appeal is identical to the issue we decided above in case of Shri Ashish N. Soparkar in ITA No.1050/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08 (supra), wherein the order of CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee under same facts has been approved by us. Therefore, facts and issues being similar, so following same reasoning we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) who has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to treat the STCG of ₹ 29,79,082/- and LTCG of ₹ 22,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g same reasoning we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) who has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to treat the income of ₹ 33,38,377/- from sale of shares and mutual funds as Short Term Capital Gain and ₹ 78,49,179/- from sale of shares and mutual funds as Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee, instead of business income as assessed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue as well. CO No.261/Ahd/2011 (in ITA No.2760/Ahd/2011) AY 2008-09: By Assessee -Shri Jayantibhai M. Patel 6. At the time of hearing, ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that he is not pressing this Crossobjection; hence, the Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
