9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of facts in each case. In the case of assessee, for the previous assessment year, the Assessing Officer had accepted the income from the shares as short term and long term capital gain. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. M. Mohammed Meerakhan (P.M.) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1969 (2) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court] as observed that it is not possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal. From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the said evidence is perverse. No substantial question of law arises. - Income Tax Appeal No. 155 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2017 - S. V. Gangapurwala And A. M. Badar, JJ. Mr. A.K. Saxena a/w Ms. Pratima Singh for the appellant Mr. Ajay Singh a/w Mr. Ravindra Poojary, Mr. Jignesh P. Shah for the respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of stock in trade, it is clear that earning dividend is not the motive. The motive is to clearly trade and earn profit. The shares are held as stock in trade. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent supports the order and submits that the observation of the Assessing Officer that five scripts were repeatedly traded, is perverse and erroneous. The Tribunal has considered that the scripts as re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. M. Mohammed Meerakhan (P.M.) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 1969, 73 ITR 375 wherein it is observed that it is not possible to evolve any single test or formula which would apply in determining the transaction as adventure in nature of trade or not. It is also observed by the Apex Court in case of The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madan Gopal Radhey, reported in 1969, 73 ITR 652 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
