TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ₹ 2,41,132/- by the AO which is sustained by the CIT(A). 3. At the time of hearing before us, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee that the assessee is an individual who derives income from the salary. That the assessee invested his saving in shares of various companies. That the total investment during the year under consideration was only ₹ 7,94,371/- and the amount received from the realisation of the investment was ₹ 10,35,503/-. Surplus amounting to ₹ 2,41,132/- was offered as short term capital gain. The AO treated the same as business income on the ground that there was frequency of the purchase and sale of the shares. It was submitted by the learned counsel that whether the purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is a settled law that, to determine whether the assessee is a trader or investor in shares, no single test is conclusive but cumulative effect of all the facts are to be seen. In the case of the assessee, one fact i.e. frequent purchase/sale of shares can be said to be against the assessee but all other facts which can be summarised as under are in favour of the assessee: i) Shri Ravindra Agrawal is a qualified professional being Chartered Accountant, Company Secretary and Cost Accountant; ii) Shri Agrawal was full time director of a public limited company at the relevant time, posted at Porbander; iii) Shares were acquired with own money and there was no borrowing by Shri Ravindra Agrawal or any other family member; i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the Revenue. Merely because, there was search at the assessee s premises, the nature of transaction would not change. In view of the above, after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and various judicial pronouncement referred above, we find no justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this point. The same is upheld and the Revenue s appeals are dismissed. That the facts of the assessee s case are almost identical to the above decision of the ITAT because in that case except frequency of the purchase and sale of shares no other point was taken by the AO for treating the surplus from the sale of shares as business income. Similar is the position in the case under appeal before us. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
