Assessee's Shares Trading as Capital Gains - ITAT Decision Upheld

The ITAT Delhi upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal maintained that the assessee's shares trading activities should be treated as Capital Gains, not Income from Business and Profession. The Revenue's argument regarding Permanent Establishment and tax liability was rejected, with the Tribunal finding no new facts to warrant a different conclusion from previous years. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the treatment of the assessee's activities as Capital Gains for the relevant assessment year.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Revenue's appeal against the order of Ld.CIT(A) for A.Y. 2010-11 regarding the treatment of shares trading activities as 'business in nature' instead of 'Capital Gain'.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Treatment of Shares Trading Activities
The Revenue challenged the deletion of addition made by Ld.AO under the head 'Income from Business and Profession' by Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AO presumed the assessee to be engaged in the business of trading in securities due to frequent sale and purchase of shares during the year. The Revenue contended that the Circular no.1827 dated 31.08.1989 by CBDT does not support considering the activities of sale/purchase of shares under 'Capital Gain'. The Ld.CIT(A) had previously deleted the addition made by Ld.AO, leading to the current appeal.

Issue 2: Assessment and Previous Years' Treatment
The assessee, a non-resident individual residing in Bahrain and pursuing a teaching profession, filed her return of income for A.Y. 2010-11. The Ld.AO observed that the assessee had disclosed Income from House Property, Short Term Capital Gains, and Income from Other Sources. The Ld.AO considered the assessee to be engaged in the business of trading in securities based on similar views taken for A.Y. 2008-09, which was later reversed by Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) for the current year deleted the addition made by Ld.AO, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 3: Permanent Establishment and Tax Liability
The Revenue argued that an element of Permanent Establishment (P.E.) could not be ruled out due to the assessee's visits to India and frequent trading in securities. The Revenue contended that the income earned should be classified as Income from Business and Profession instead of Capital Gains. However, the assessee's counsel argued that no business connection could be established as per section 9 of the Act and DTAA between India and Bahrain. The counsel highlighted that the assessee is liable to be taxed for business profit in Bahrain, not in India.

Conclusion:
The ITAT Delhi upheld the observations of Ld.CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal found no new facts to deviate from the consistent view taken for previous assessment years. The appeal filed by the Revenue was ultimately dismissed, affirming the treatment of the assessee's shares trading activities as Capital Gains and not Income from Business and Profession.

---