TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the immediate earlier year i.e. Assessment Year 2004-05 and with respect to the very shares, the Assessing Officer had accepted the same as investments in shares and when these very shares came to be sold by the assessee during the year under consideration, no error and/or illegality has been committed by the CIT(A) as well as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in deleting the additions made by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed an order of assessment dated 26/12/2007 directing to treat the income of ₹ 2,75,44,976/- as long term capital gain instead of business income. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer treating the income of ₹ 2,75,44,976/- as long term capital gain instead of business income, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal. 3. Heard Ms. Paurami Sheth, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-revenue and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer. It is not in dispute that with respect to the very shares, which were sold during the assessment year in question, in the Assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment Year in question were treated as investment. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. No question of law, much less, substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same requires to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
