9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee’s assertion that the previous year’s assessment-which had accepted the reporting of the transaction which he claims to be identical, is unpersuasive. The previous year’s assessment order (for AY 2008-09) in fact did not lead any discussion on this aspect and appear to have merely accepted the assessee’s contention. Those cannot by any stretch of imagination be conclusive. At any rate in such cases, one cannot apply the principle of res judicata or estoppel. - ITA 86/2018 and CM APPL.2794-2795/2018 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2018 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. A. K. CHAWLA JJ. Appellant Through: Appellant in person. Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties and perusing the materials available on record and the orders of the authorities below, we find that during the year,the assessee has purchased and sold the shares of ₹ 22.03 crores and odd and ₹ 24.12 crores and odd respectively. Some of the shares of Axis Bank were purchased in the previous year, out of which some were sold and balance has been shown as on 31.03.2009. On examination of the tables reproduced above, we observe that the assessee has made purchase of shares 57 times and sale of shares 59 times. There are several instances when the assessee has purchased the shares and sold them either the same day or after a few days. In most of the cases, the assessee has done intraday transactions. From the balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld all the shares. On perusal of the computation filed by the assessee and the capital account, the assessee has not received any dividend during the year. The assessee has received only dividend of ₹ 350/- in F.Y. 31.03.2009. In view of the characteristics of share transactions undertaken by the assessee, we do not find any justification to discard the findings reached by the authorities below on this issue 4. The petitioner, who represents himself, firstly urges that the findings of the lower appellate authorities are facially in error of law because they overlooked the circumstance that for the past years similar transactions were accepted as capital gain. There being no challenge in the nature of the transactions, asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
