9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... companies being Hindustan Construction and GMR Infra Structure. The remaining shares relate to purchases made in the previous years. Thus we do not find any reason to hold that the short term capital gain or long term capital gain as declared by the assessee should not be assessed under these heads of income. - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No.1145/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 9-6-2016 - N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR For The Respondent : Shri M P Rastogi, Adv. ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: The present appeal filed by the Revenue, arises from the order dated 13.12.2013 passed by Ld. CIT(A) IX, New Delhi for the Assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are without prejudiced to each other. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The assessee is a non banking financial company registered with Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and is engaged in the business of trading in units of mutual funds and investment in shares and debentures. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 21st October, 2010 declaring total income of ₹ 2,91,48,395/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2) / 142(1) were issued. 2.2 During the assessment proceedings, Ld. Assessing Officer observed the assessee had purchased and sold mutual funds and shares. Apart from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed under the head 'Income from Business profession' or 'Short Term Capital Gains'. 5.3 The Ld. Assessing Officer made following additions to the income of the assessee: Long term capital gain treated as business income Rs.55,80,788/- Short term capital gain Treated as business income Rs.1,59,15,398/- 5.4 Aggrieved by the order of Ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 6. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gopal Purohit (2010) 336 ITR 387. 6.1 Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting principles and standards and the assessee has consistently been following the same accounting principle every year. He submitted that the assessee held the shares as investment and not as stock in trade. Ld. A.R. has submitted a list of shares held by the assessee during the year under consideration. Ld. A.R. has also placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of a sister concern of the assessee being CIT Vs Chowdary Associates in I.T.A. No. 544/2013. He submitted that Hon'ble High Court in the case of its sister concern, upheld the findings of the Tribunal by holding that the income derived by the assessee from the above purchase sale of shares are to be considered under the head inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Hon ble Court has held that the principle of consistency is a basic factor to be considered while deciding the nature of income. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also held that the uniformity in maintaining the books of accounts is the most crucial source of getting to know intention of the assessee as regard to the nature of transaction. It is observed from the details placed in the paper book that the assessee has made investments in the mutual funds and shares which has been shown by the said company under the head stock in trade / Investments in their balance sheet consistently. There is also no change in the year under consideration as well, as compared to the preceding years, where the income from sale / purchase of shares ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
