9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case and in law, the learned C1T(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 19(3) (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Assessing Officer) in treating the gains arising from sale of shares as chargeable under the head "Profit and gains of business or profession" instead of "Capital gains" on the alleged ground that the Appellant is a trader in shares and not an investor. The Appellant prays that the gains arising from sale of shares be treated as chargeable under the head "Capital gains" since he is an investor in shares. (b) Without prejudice to Ground No. 1(a) above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering and upholding the Appellant's alternative contenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has agitated the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) treating the income from sale of shares as business income as against capital gains as claimed by the assessee. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, during the year under consideration had shown short term capital gains of Rs. 1,91,83,705/- and long term capital gains of Rs. 16,93,88,051/-. The AO observed that in the earlier assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2007-08, the assessee has treated the share transactions as business activity and disclosed a net business loss of Rs. 3,70,14,763/- on trading in shares. The said return of the assessee was scrutinized under section 143(3) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "Gopal Purohit" 188 Taxman 140, observed that there are ought to be uniformity and consistency in treatment of income when the facts and circumstances are identical to the earlier years. The AO therefore treated the income from share transactions as business income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO observing that in the assessment year 2007-08 the assessee had himself treated the income arising out of sale of shares as business income. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "CIT vs. Darius Pandole" 2011 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf as an investor, only because the benefits to him for treated like that. The decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "Gopal Purohit" is applicable in the case in hand. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities in treating the assessee as a trader in share transactions. So far as the contention that the gains arising from sale of bonus shares and split shares be charged under the head "Capital gains", we are unable to subscribe to the said contention also. Once the assessee has been treated as a trader, then the income arising from bonus shares, split shares etc. is also to be treated as business income only. Ground No.1 of the appeal is therefore decided against the assessee. Ground No.2 7. Vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
