TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y producing the copies of certificates in physical form and also members register with Shilpa Medicare Ltd. at the relevant point of time supported by requisite statutory forms filed by Shilpa Medicare Ltd. before the concerned Registrar of Companies. With these observations, the issue is restored to the AO for fresh consideration, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 3262/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2021 - Chandra Poojari, Member (A) and Beena Pillai, Member (J) For the Appellant : Rajkumar Hanchnal, CA For the Respondents : Kannan Narayanan, Jt. CIT (DR) ORDER Chandra Poojari, Member (A) This appeal is directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecifically states at clause (d) that purchase or sale of trading carried out at recognised stock exchange shall not be treated as speculative transaction. 6. On facts and circumstance of the case, the order of the learned authority is against the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, High courts and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal of various states, in so far as they relate to maintenance of two port folios, classification of such portfolios per se intention of the assessee irrespective of the entries made in the books of accounts. a) CIT V/s. EXCELL INDUSTRIES LTD. (2013) 262 CTR (SC) 261. b) CIT V/S. GOPAL PUROHIT (2010) 228 CTR (BOM) 582. c) CIT V/S. EXPRESS SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (2014) 272 CTR (DEL) 294. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT vide impugned order directed the AO to reframe the assessment. Against this order of CIT, the assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal confirmed the order of CIT u/s. 263 of the Act. 3. As such, the AO in his order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 denied exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act and treated it as long term capital gain at ₹ 44,78,676. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Now the contention of the assessee is that it purchased the impugned shares in the year 1999-2000 and converted it into Demat account during the year 2006-07, as such no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
