TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... never treated such holdings in the past as stock-in-trade. It is also stated in the order that the claim of the Revenue that the assessee is doing stock-in-trade is without any basis and no material was brought on record to show that the assessee had been valuing the holding of shares as at the end of each year on first- in, first-out (FIFO) method and the assessee had valued investment at cost and declared the same as investment as per the balance-sheet as on March 31, 2006. It is also stated in the order that the shares have been held for more than 30 number of days which is evident from the holding period shown by the assessee in more than 92 per cent. of the transactions and the assessee retained the shares for appreciation in value an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal for short, made in I. T. A. No. 333(Asr)/2010, dated April 11, 2012, I. T. A. Nos. 317, 318, 319 and 320(Asr) of 2012 dated September 27, 2012 respectively. 3. In I. T. A. No. 129 of 2012 the Tribunal allowed the appeals preferred by the respondent, which were filed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bathinda dated May 18, 2010 for the assessment year 2006-07. The contention of the respondent before the Tribunal was that the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority were not justified in treating the short-term capital gain of ₹ 1,80,75,100 as income from business and levying the tax at 30 per cent. instead of 10 per cent. on the ground that the assessee is engaged in the busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r books, i.e., first paper book in volume 1 containing 518 pages and another paper book containing pages 519 to 615 pages. 5. The Tribunal by applying the Circular No. 4 of 2007, dated June 15, 2007 (see [2007] 291 ITR (St.) 384 ), accepted the plea of the assessee and relying upon the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. reported in [2009] 313 ITR 24 (SC) allowed the appeal by giving a factual finding that the assessee has declared purchases/holding of shares as investment for the past several years and surplus has been claimed as capital gains before the assessing authority and said facts are evident from the reply of the assessee dated November 21, 2008 and the appellate authority also has mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reciation of documents, which were not considered by the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority, the contention of the Revenue that the assessee is doing stock-in-trade and not investments cannot be accepted and no substantial question of law arises for determination in these Income-tax appeals. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue forcefully argued that the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal are without any basis and same can be interfered based on no evidence. We are unable to appreciate the said contention as the Tribunal has recorded reasons and on perusing meticulously the materials placed before it and recorded the factual findings. 7. The judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in CIT v. Gopal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
