9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that merely because the Assessee was engaged in trading of stocks, derivatives and features, it did not mean that the Assessee was "precluded from maintaining investment portfolio."The ITAT referred to CBDT Circular No. 4 of 2007 which recognised that an Assessee having two portfolios "may have income under both heads i.e. capital gains as well as business income." The ITAT further referred th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gards the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act is concerned, apart from the fact that this point does not appear to have been urged by the Revenue before the ITAT and, therefore, not dealt with by it, the Court is not satisfied that the said provision has any application in the facts of the present case. - Decided against revenue - ITA 326/2016, ITA 335/2016 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2016 - S. Muralidh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome, only ₹ 2,17,10,019/- would be business income and the balance of ₹ 4,18,32,855/- would be capital gains. For AY 2007-08 the CIT (A) held that out of the profit of Rs. l,02,92,943/- from share transactions treated by the AO as business income, only ₹ 54,85,307/- would be business income and the balance ₹ 48,07,636/- would be capital gains. The ITAT also concurred with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO and the CIT (A), the Court is not inclined to agree with the above submission. Both the CIT (A) and the ITAT have concurrently concluded on facts that the Assessee has in its books of account been treating separately the shares held as investment and those held as stock-in-trade. The ITAT noted that merely because the Assessee was engaged in trading of stocks, derivatives and features, it did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 5. Having heard the submissions of Mr. Manchanda, the Court is not persuaded to re-examine the above concurrent finding on facts by both the CIT (A) and the ITAT. No case has been made out by the Revenue that the above factual findings are perverse warranting interference by the Court. As regards the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act is concerned, apart from the fact that this point does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
