Share transaction classification turns on intention, holding period, and transaction pattern; investor status upheld over business income treatment.

Share gains were treated as capital gains because the assessee was a salaried investor and the transaction pattern did not show trading activity. The appellate authority and Tribunal found that the volume and frequency of transactions were not indicative of business, and that the shares were generally held for a substantial period. Those concurrent factual findings supported the conclusion that the assessee was acting as an investor rather than engaging in an adventure in the nature of trade. In the absence of perversity in those findings, no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the gain on sale of shares was to be treated as long-term capital gain or as business income, and whether the assessee was an investor or a trader in shares.

Analysis: The factual findings of the appellate authority and the Tribunal showed that the assessee was a salaried person, the volume and frequency of share transactions were not such as to indicate trading, and the shares were held for a substantial period in the main. The nature of the transactions, taken as a whole, supported the view that the assessee had invested funds as an investor and not embarked upon an adventure in the nature of trade. In the absence of any perversity in those concurrent findings, no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: The gain on sale of shares was rightly assessed as capital gain and the assessee was correctly treated as an investor, not a trader.

Ratio Decidendi: Whether share transactions constitute investment or trading depends on the intention at purchase and the surrounding facts, including holding period, volume, and frequency of transactions; concurrent factual findings on that issue will not give rise to a substantial question of law unless shown to be perverse.

---