TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant : Mr Nitin K Mehta, Adv. For the Respondent : None ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Jayant Patel) 1. In the present appeal, Revenue has formulated various questions, but we find that only Question No.A can be canvassed for consideration and the same reads as under:- Whether learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 19,91,409/- and ₹ 8,52,25,106/- by directing the A.O., to treat the impugned amounts as short-term capital gain and long-term capital gain respectively and not as business income? 2. The facts show that A.O., in the assessment order dated 16.11.2009 treated the income as business income of the aforesaid respective amounts. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, vide order dated 16.1.2015, passed the following order:- 1. In present appeal, the revenue has formulated various questions of law, but we find that only question No.A can be canvassed for consideration. The same reads as under: Whether Ld. Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 12,52,424/and ₹ 53,86,262/- by directing the AO to treat the impugned amounts as Short Term Capital Gain and Long Term Capital Gain and not as Business Income? 2. The relevant facts are that AO treated the income of the shares as business income, whereas CIT (Appeals) treated the income as on investment after considering appropriately the Short Term Capital Gain and Long Term Capital Gain. The Tribunal, in the appeal, by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the business income and such were not the fact situation in the earlier period, because in those cases, the purchases of the shares were treated as investment. 6. We do not find that such a distinction, as sought to be canvassed, would result into a substantial question, as sought to be canvassed, in the present matter. As such, the principal activity of the assessee is salaried income, but in addition to the same, the shares were purchased and they are sold. 7. We do not find that any substantial question of law would arise, more particularly, when the question is already covered by the above referred decisions of this Court. No case is made out for interference of the order passed by the Tribunal and hence, the appeal is meritless a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
