TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rary." 2. The assessee declared long-term capital gain from the shares at Rs. 2,00,484. The AO considered the profit from the shares as income from business and worked out the amount of profit at Rs. 4,39,293. According to the AO the assessee earned the aforesaid profit as per following details: Sl. No. Name of com. Qty. Cost Price Selling Price Qty. Profit/loss Equity Shares 1. Didwana Indl. Corp. Ltd. 1,000 10,510 13,000 1,000 2,490 2. General Invest. Co. Ltd. 400 0 42,800 400 42,800 3. -do- 40 4,053 4,280 40 227 4. -do- 30 3,343 3,210 30 - 133 5. Oriental Co. Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were purchased only with a view to earn dividend income and those shares were only investment and were not even disposed off when there was unexpected rise in the value of shares. It was stated that the assessee had sold only 5,875 shares which was of near about 10 per cent of the total holding and thus assessee had not dealt in shares. It was also submitted that the assessee had not invested in shares by making borrowing and had shown the investment in shares under the head "investment" in the balance sheet. It was further stated that the main source of the assessee was salary income from various concerns and considerable income from other sources. Therefore, AO was not justified in holding that the assessee had done business in purchase....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Karamchand Thapar & Sons Ltd. and also decision of ITAT Bombay Bench in the case of Smt. Neerja Birla vs. Asstt. CIT (1997) 59 TTJ (Mumbai) 266 held that the AO was not justified in treating the business income on account of sale of shares. He accordingly directed the AO to tax only capital gain as shown by the assessee on sale of shares. 5. Being aggrieved, the Department is in appeal. The learned Departmental Representative reiterated the observations made by the AO and vehemently argued that the assessee was engaged in the business of the sale and purchase of the shares and there were many transactions which were done by the assessee for the year under consideration. Therefore, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R (Bom) 199 : (1988) 172 ITR 95 (Bom) and Ashok Kumar Jalan vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 316 (Bom). It was further stated that the assessee had not taken any loan for making the investment in shares and the holdings of the shares was for a long period virtually 20-30 years before sale which proved the intention of the assessee of being an investor and not a dealer. He further stated that the AO only mentioned the rate of the shares and the sale value in the assessment order but not the date of purchase. He referred to the page No. 17 of the paper book which reads as under: Name of the Dt. of Cost Qty. Cost Sold during the year company acquisition per unit (Rs.) Qty. Rate Amount Profit/loss in bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 36.50 1,825 (709.00) Total Preference 450 20,780.00 450 41,825 21,045.00 Sub Total 5,875 1,15,426.50 5,875 5,54,720 4,39,293.50 On the basis of above detail it was stated that the shares were purchased long ago so the profit from those shares was rightly claimed as long-term capital gain. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and the material available on record. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the main source of the income of the assessee was salary income and income from other sources such as dividend income, directorship fee, interest, etc. From the details furnished by the learned counsel for the assessee, it....