9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted factors inter-alia establishing that the assessee was occupied in the activity of manufacturing of optical equipments, that the assessee had showed the acquisition of shares as investment, that all purchases were upon delivery of shares. Exemption u/s 54F denied - purchasing two flats of residential complex - Revenue contends that both the flats are independent units and the assessee, therefore, cannot get exemption with respect to investments made in purchase of both of the - Held that:- CIT(A) and the Tribunal concurrently held that the two flats were combined into one residential unit. There was a common electricity connection and common bill. There was only one telephone connection. The LPG connection was also single. There was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer's objection was that the assessee had dealt with sizable volume of shares which had give risen to considerables income. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that the assessee was not in the business of buying and selling shares. The material on record would suggest that the assessee was principally engaged in manufacturing of optical equipments. That was his principal source of income. 2006- 07 was the first year when the assessee had acquired sizable volume of shares. All the shares were purchased on delivery basis. The record would also suggest that the assessee had shown these shares as investment. The assessee had dealt with principally one or two scripts during the entire year. 4. Whether the acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the evidence based on which the claim was granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been noted by the Tribunal in paragraph 4 of its order. Prior thereto, the factual position has also been noticed that the Assessee along with his wife jointly owned bungalow. The bungalow was sold at ₹ 3/- crores. With this sum, they bought three flats, one in the Assessee's name, another in the name of Assessee and his wife and third in the name of the wife. The Assessee claimed deduction under section 54 on purchase of two flats in which he is either a sole owner or a joint owner. Though these flats were acquired under two distinct agreements and from different sellers, what has been noted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
