9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax-Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short), raising following questions for our consideration : (i) Whether in law and on the facts of the instant case, was theTribunal in error in holding that the assessee is an investor in shares, ignoring the volume, frequency and regularity of transactions thereby indicative that he was a trader in shares? (ii) Whether in law and on the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissed the Revenue's appeal making following observations :" 6. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. So far as it relates to the case of individual, for immediate preceding assessment year similar claim has been accepted by way of an assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. According to the figures placed in the chart the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on as compared to the immediate preceding assessment year for which similar activity has been held to be assessable under the head capitalgain. There is also no substantial difference in the activities carried out by the assessee in individual capacity visavisin the capacity of HUF. The assessee did not utilize the borrowed funds for making investment as the entire investment is made out of own ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidual capacity as well as in the capacity of a Karta of HUF and lastly that the assessee has not utilized any borrowed funds for making such investments. The investment was out of his own capital. In view of such relevant facts noticed by the Tribunal, we do not see any error in the view taken by the Tribunal. No question, therefore, arises.
6. The tax appeal is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
