9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011 passed for assessment year 2008-09. 2. Though the revenue has taken three grounds of appeal but its grievance revolves around a single issue whereby it has pleaded that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the profit/gains earned on the transactions of purchase and sale of shares and securities of ₹ 75,05,935/- as long term capital gain instead of treating the same under the head business income . 3. Learned counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of ITAT passed in ITA No. 127/Ahd/2009 and ITA No. 2076/Ahd/2009 for Assessment Year 2005-06 and 2006-07. He placed on record t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment order of A.Y.2007-08 and on the basis of various judicial pronouncements mentioned in the assessment order for A.Y. 2007-08, the amount of ₹ 75,05,935/- is treated as business income. 5. Dissatisfied with the action of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Ld. first appellate authority after following the order of his predecessor in Assessment Year 2007-08 and the orders of ITAT, Ahmedabad set aside the action of Assessing Officer and directed him to treat the assessee as an investor and accordingly assess the gains from sale of shares as a long term capital gain as well as short term capital gain. The finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reads as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove decision of 'D' bench of the ITAT, Ahmedabad, in the case of Shri Sugamchand C Shah (Supra), has also been recently followed by the ITAT, Ahmedabad in another case of Smt. Dipikaben Mukeshbhai Saraiya, Surat in A.Y. 2005-06 vide order dtd. 25/3/11 in ITA No. 2669/Ahd/2008. The appellant shall, accordingly, furnish details of all such scrips, viz. gain from shares which have been held for a period of less than 30 days before the Assessing Officer for giving effect to this order. The first ground of appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. 6. With the assistance of ld. representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that in this assessment year, Assessing Officer has not independently discussed the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of a trader. The conclusions drawn by the ITAT on page 21 of the order are worth to note. It reads as under:- 5.12 In view of the foregoing, following the view taken in the aforesaid decisions, If we analyse the transactions in the instant case, we find that the assessee disclosed income from capital gains / dividends in earlier years and the shares have all along been treated as investments in the books of account/balance sheets. In these circumstances, we, therefore, direct the AO to accept the short-term capital gain amounting to Rs, 62,67,735/- declared by the assessee in the return of income. Therefore, ground no.1 in the appeal is allowed. 6. As regards ground no.1 in the appeal of the Revenue, the Id. CIT(A) pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
