9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal, would not call for interference holding that the assessing authority is not right in treating profit derived of ₹ 10,66,425/- on sale of shares under the head business income and not under the head capital gains - ITA NO. 59/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2016 - MR. JAYANT PATEL AND MR. B. SREENIVASE GOWDA JJ. Appellants: (By Sri. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) JAYANT PATEL J., JUDGMENT The Appellants-Revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is in law in holding that the assessing authority is not right in treating profit derived of ₹ 10,66,425/- on sale of shares under the head busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re holding that such shares were held as stock-in-trade. 6. As directed by the Hon'ble ITAT the A.O had examined these details during course of assessment proceedings and mentioned in his assessment order that vide letter dated 26.11.2007 the A.R of the appellant stated that the shares which were sold were not acquired out of borrowed funds and all the shares purchased by the company were held as investments and valued at cost consistently from its inception and year after year. However while determining the nature of income the A.O did not consider these crucial points. As there is no evidence to show that the appellant held these shares as stock-in- trade at any point of time, I am unable to agree with the conclusion of the A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the Tribunal did not interfere with the view taken by the CIT (Appeals). 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-Revenue by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties Investments Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported at (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) made an attempt to contend that the income should have been treated as that of the business income and not as that of the investment income or capital gain. 7. We may record that more or less, similar questions arose for consideration before this Court in ITA No.567/2015 and the very decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties Investments Ltd (supra) was considered by this Court and it was observed that the questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
