TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ares at Rs. 2,00,484. The AO considered the profit from the shares as income from business and worked out the amount of profit at Rs. 4,39,293. According to the AO the assessee earned the aforesaid profit as per following details: Sl. No. Name of com. Qty. Cost Price Selling Price Qty. Profit/loss Equity Shares 1. Didwana Indl. Corp. Ltd. 1,000 10,510 13,000 1,000 2,490 2. General Invest. Co. Ltd. 400 0 42,800 400 42,800 3. do 40 4,053 4,280 40 227 4. do 30 3,343 3,210 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilar circumstances but had not accepted the long-term capital gain as declared by assessee on sale of shares in his case. It was stated that the shares which were sold by the assessee were purchased long long ago i.e. 20-30 years back and such shares were purchased only with a view to earn dividend income and those shares were only investment and were not even disposed off when there was unexpected rise in the value of shares. It was stated that the assessee had sold only 5,875 shares which was of near about 10 per cent of the total holding and thus assessee had not dealt in shares. It was also submitted that the assessee had not invested in shares by making borrowing and had shown the investment in shares under the head "investment" in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the AO had placed reliance, as a matter of fact supported the view of the assessee rather than of the AO. He, therefore, following the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Karamchand Thapar Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and the judgment of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Karamchand Thapar Sons Ltd. and also decision of ITAT Bombay Bench in the case of Smt. Neerja Birla vs. Asstt. CIT (1997) 59 TTJ (Mumbai) 266 held that the AO was not justified in treating the business income on account of sale of shares. He accordingly directed the AO to tax only capital gain as shown by the assessee on sale of shares. 5. Being aggrieved, the Department is in appeal. The learned Departmental Representative reiterated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in directing the AO to consider the profit from the sale of shares as long long-term capital gain and not income from business. The reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. V.A. Trivedi (1988) 72 CTR (Bom) 199 : (1988) 172 ITR 95 (Bom) and Ashok Kumar Jalan vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 316 (Bom). It was further stated that the assessee had not taken any loan for making the investment in shares and the holdings of the shares was for a long period virtually 20-30 years before sale which proved the intention of the assessee of being an investor and not a dealer. He further stated that the AO only mentioned the rate of the shares and the sale value in the assessment order but not the date of purchase. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 300 625.00 1,87,500 1,40,739.00 Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills 14/7/74 0.00 3,000 10.00 3,000 85.00 1,95,000 1,94,990.00 Total Equity 5,425 95,646.50 5,425 5,12,895 4,18,248.50 Preference Shares Codrey Philips India Ltd. 23/2/74 45.62 400 18,246.00 400 100.00 40,000 21,754.00 Ketwell Bullen Co. Ltd. 16/5/67 50.88 50 2,534.00 50 36.50 1,825 (709.00) Total Preference 450 20,780.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
