9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. R. Bharadwaj with Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Advocates JUDGMENT The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated March 13, 2014, by which the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal preferred by the Revenue. The Assessing Officer held that the transaction in shares undertaken by the assessee was in the nature of a business transaction and not investment. Aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month of July. This submission of Mr. Saraf evidently is based on misreading of the evidence. It would appear from the assessment order that payment was made for the shares in the month of July itself through bill accommodation facility. Mr. Saraf relied upon a judgment in the case of CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. reported in [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). He drew our attention to the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into the purchase of these shares was borrowed by the assessee. In other words, the view of the Tribunal was, it was with borrowed funds that the assessee purchased the shares. It is no doubt true that there was no evidence to show that the money was specifically bor rowed for the purpose of buying shares. But there was evidence before the Tribunal for its finding that the liabilities of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity for the proposition that since purchase was made by borrowed funds, it is bound to become a business transaction. The Tribunal in that case had taken a possible view. Therefore, the apex court did not interfere. No other submission was made. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Tribunal in this case is also based on evidence and is a possible view. There is, as such, no r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
