9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and referred to page-2 of the AO's order and argued that the assessee could not explain by filing relevant details of expenses incurred supporting the claim. The ld. AR submits that the issue is covered in assessee's own case for A.Y.2009-10 in ITA No.90/Kol/2013 The ld. AR referred to para - 5 of the said order and argued that the claim of deduction u/s 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) is applicable to the subsequent loan availed by the assesse mentioned in the original return. The ld. AR argued that the coordinate bench of this tribunal by order dated 24.11.2015 held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A). Hence, this ground of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 8. Coming to Revenue's second ground. The issue raised by Revenue in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by AO on account of treating Long Term Capital Loss (LTCG for short) as Short Term Capital Gains (STCG for short) as business loss. In this case, assessee-company purchased 1.80 lakh share of premier Ltd. in the month of February, 2008 as investment for a total consideration of Rs. 2,06,48,950/- in the financial year 2007-08 and this investment in shares was shown as LTCG investment. However, assessee-company converted this LTCG share into stock-in-trade by passing a resolution on 01.04.2008 on the date of conversion the market value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbai) ii) CIT v. Walfort Share And Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) iii) Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 796 (SC) 10. Now aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We have heard rival parties and perused the materials available on record. Before us Ld. DR supported the order of AO whereas Ld. AR supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). In this case, AO has disallowed the conversion of the capital asset into stock-in-trade on the ground that there was no business activities carried on by assessee-company during the relevant previous year and Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the claim of the AO on the ground that Sec.45(2) of the Act provides the assessee to convert th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
