9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that there were substantial investments, which were made for several years, as noted in the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the ITAT'). He has further submitted that considering the amount so invested, it should be taken as income from business, not capital gain. He has placed reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd., [1975] 100 ITR 706. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for appellant at length and going through the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur (supra) as well as the orders passed by Assessing officer, Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown the shares as investment in the balance sheet filed by her with the return of income and that the returns of those years were accepted by the Department. It is also noted that in the immediately preceding A.Y. of 2006-07, the Ld. CIT(A)-34, Mumbai, in his order dated 30.3.2010 passed in the appellant's case had accepted that the appellant was an investor in shares and had directed the AO to assess the appellant's income from sale of the shares under the head 'capital gain'. Further, it is observed that during the year also, the appellant has entered into a number of sale transactions of those shares, which she had held for a period ranging from one year to six years. Therefore, I find merit in the argument of Ld. AR th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning amount was to he held as the short term capital gain, over and above the amount of the short term capital gain already declared by the assessee in the return of income. The AO, is accordingly, directed to assess the long term capital gain at ₹ 50,54,860/- and the balance amount as short term capital gain. Consequently, this ground of appeal is treated as partly allowed. 5. Reasons given by the CIT(A) have been affirmed by the ITAT are found to be appropriate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd.'s case (supra) has laid down that if the dominant intention was to carry on an adventure in the nature of business, the profit can be taxed, otherwise not. In other words, the question is whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
