9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness income - the assessee has an option to treat the income from sale of listed shares and securities as income arising under the head 'Long Term Capital Gains', them the same shall be accepted by the assessing officer. However, the stand once taken by the assessee would not be subject to change and consistently the income on the sale of securities which are held as investment would continue to be taxed as long capital gains or business income as opted by the Assessee. The circular makes no distinction whether the investments made in shares were out of borrowed funds or out of its own funds. Thus, the distinction which has been sought to be made by the Revenue cannot override the above CBDT Circular, which is binding upon it - issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Futures Option transaction as normal business loss? 3. Regarding Question No. (a):- (a). The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal by following its order dated 1st May, 2013 in the case of same assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 treating its income on sale of shares as classifiable under the head 'capital gain'. According to the learned counsel for Revenue, the appeal of the Revenue from the earlier order dated 1st May 2013 of the Tribunal for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 has been admitted on 7th March, 2016 by this Court being Income Tax Appeal Nos. 2313 and 2290 of 2013 (CIT V/s. Hardik Patel). Therefore, this appeal also requires consideration. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res were out of borrowed funds or out of its own funds. Thus, the distinction which has been sought to be made by the Revenue cannot override the above CBDT Circular, which is binding upon it. (d) In the above view, as the issue stands concluded in favour of the Respondent by the above CBDT Circular, the above question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence, not entertained. 4. Regarding Question (b):- (a) Mr. Walve, the learned counsel for the Revenue, very fairly states that this issue stands concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat R. Ruia (HUF) reported in [2011] 337 ITR 452 (Bom). (b) In the above view, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
