Investment in shares, not trading stock, leads to capital gains treatment and no substantial question of law arises.

Concurrent factual findings that shares were acquired and held as investment, rather than as stock-in-trade, justified assessment of the profit on sale under the head capital gains and not business income. The earlier favourable treatment of similar transactions did not create res judicata, but a contrary view could be taken only on the basis of fresh material, which was absent. The appellate authorities had applied the correct legal principles, including Supreme Court guidance on distinguishing investment from trading activity, and no legal or factual infirmity was shown. As no substantial question of law arose under section 260A, interference was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the profit arising from sale of shares was assessable as business income or as capital gains, and whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration under section 260A.

Analysis: The authorities below found, on appraisal of the entire material, that the assessee held the shares as investment and was not carrying on share-trading as a business. The earlier treatment of similar transactions in the assessee's favour did not operate as res judicata, but a different view could be taken only on fresh material. No such fresh material was shown, and the appellate authorities had applied the correct legal principles while following the relevant Supreme Court guidance on the distinction between investment and trading activity. In these circumstances, no legal or factual infirmity was established in the concurrent findings.

Conclusion: The profit on sale of shares was rightly assessed under the head capital gains and not as business income, and no substantial question of law arose to justify interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the concurrent finding that the assessee was an investor in shares was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where concurrent findings on facts establish that shares were acquired and held as investment and no fresh material supports a contrary view, the resulting income is assessable as capital gains and not business income, and no substantial question of law arises in appeal.

---