9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee has not been claimed as deduction in the computation of income. He has further given a finding that Assessee during the year has not purchased any shares from the groups involved in IPO scam. Before us, Revenue has not controverted the findings of ld. CIT(A) nor has brought on record any contrary binding decision in its support. Thus no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 20 crores, the Assessee had sold the shares within a short period and the activities of purchase and sale of shares were frequent and that during the year, Assessee had acquired shares from the persons involved in IPO scam in large quantities. A.O therefore concluded that the motive of the Assessee was to earn maximum profit and not to hold the shares as investment and therefore the Assessee was a dealer in shares and securities and not an investor. He accordingly treated the surplus arising on sale of shares of ₹ 2,11,59,808/- as "business income" instead of "capital gains". Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who decided the issue in favour of the Assessee by holding as under:- 9. Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected to STT and such STT has not been claimed or allowed in the computation of income. In so far as the IPO scam is concerned, it is shown by the appellant that they have not purchased any shares from either Panchal group or Sungadh Group during the year. I also appreciate the reference made to the Mumbai ITAT. decision in the case of Gopal Purohit 29 SOT 117, which has been subsequently confirmed by Hon'ble Bombay High court, which supports the appellant's explanation. The other judicial decisions relied upon by the Authorized Representative are also supporting its explanation. Similar issue has arisen in case of appellant company in AY. 2006-2007 wherein I vide my order dated 15/10/2009 in Appeal No CIT(A)-I/CC1(3)/31/2008-2009 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith Reserve Bank of India. He further submitted that the investments have been made out of own funds and not borrowed funds and further submitted that the net worth of the Assessee as per the balance sheet is more than ₹ 9 crores and Assessee has no borrowings and for which he pointed to the copy of the Balance sheet as at 31st March, 2005 which is placed at page 68 of the paper book. He further submitted that the total scrips in which the Assessee had traded were in 23 companies and even in the case of CIT vs. Vaibhav Shah (Tax Appeal No. 77 of 2010 order dated 27.06.2012), where the Assessee had entered in 64 sale transactions in 27 scrips and 17 sale transactions in 4 scrips, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held the surplus to be ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
