TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee filed its return of income on 23-10-2006 declaring total income of ₹ 1,60,34,209/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to file necessary details in respect of its return of income, which included dividend income, capital gains and business income. The assessee filed necessary details as sought by the AO. The AO completed assessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 10-12-2008 at an income of ₹ 1,61,86,640/-. 4. The CIT invoking the powers vested upon him under Section 263 of the Act asked the assessee as to why the order under Section 143(3) da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HDFC Bank. The counsel also pointed out that the assessee has explained that the Circular No.4 of CBDT of 2007, dated 15-6-2007, clearly states that the assessee has to make distinction between shares held as investments and held as stock-in-trade. The counsel further stated that the assessee has successfully explained to the AO that the assessee company is engaged in the investment activity of shares and accordingly income derived from investment activity is to be considered as capital gains only. It is the say of the counsel that the AO has verified all the details filed by the assessee thoroughly and after examining the details/documentary evidence, the AO has come to the conclusion that the income declared under the head capital gains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents. The assessee s reply was specific and all the details with supporting documents were placed before the AO for verification. The AO after making necessary verification accepted the contention of the assessee in respect of capital gains. The order of the AO may be brief and cryptic, but that by itself is not sufficient reason to brand the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Merely because the CIT is of the opinion that the income out of purchase and sale of shares should have been treated as income from business would not render the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The decision of the AO is a possible view because there are conflicting decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
