9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e s real income. To our minds, as and when the subject shares are sold, as per the provisions of the Act, income arising from sale, if they are still held as investment, will, perhaps, be amenable to tax as capital gains. We find that there is no error either in law or on facts in the approach adopted by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Therefore, the second issue is also decided against the appellant/revenue and in favour of the respondent/assessee. - ITA 205/2023 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2023 - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU For the Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel. For the Respondent Through: None. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL) CM APPL. 166 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s court in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 372 ITR 694 (Del). 8. Therefore, in our view, insofar as the second issue is concerned, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 9. As regards the first issue, the following facts are required to be noticed. (i) The respondent/assessee had, in its possession, what evidently were shares concerning the three companies i.e., Fortis Financial Services Ltd., Oscar Investment Ltd. and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (ii) The shares in the said entities held by the respondent/assessee were converted into investments. (iii) The Assessing Officer (AO), while framing the assessment, concluded that business income had arisen in favour of the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (*) Rate taken from Schedule D of the Annual Accounts (Figures of 31.3.2007) (**) Opening market rates at BSE on 1st Day of Trading during F.Y. 2007-08. 10. Mr Bhatia says that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that they had to undertake an exercise as to when the subject shares were, in fact, sold. 11. According to us, the error pointed out by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal in the approach of the AO was correct. The error in the AO s approach was that he had based the addition in the respondent/assessee s taxable income on the presumption that business income had arisen in its favour. Clearly, there is no finding of fact returned by the AO that there was a sale of the shares. 12. The quantification of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
