TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (12) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces of the case, the ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing the set off of long-term capital loss of Rs. 1,02,31,691 against the short term capital gains of Rs. 1,47,15,196. 2.Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, the appellant submits that the ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the short-term capital gains of Rs. 1,47,15,196 as profit from share trading business. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) legally erred in not disposing of the additional grounds of appeal filed by the appellant on 19-10-2003. 4.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) legally err....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....investment in the Balance Sheet of the assessee. During the course of hearing, the assessee has filed the computation of income along with working of accounts for assessment year beginning from 1995-96 onwards till up-to-date wherein similar transactions in sale and purchase of shares both on Long Term and Short Term basis have been categorically shown by the assessee as income from Capital Gains and accepted by the Income-tax Department. The copies of Assessment Orders ranging from assessment year 1995-96 to assessment year 1999-2000 have been filed on record and it has been brought to our notice that the assessment in some of the years have been completed under section 143(3) of the Act, wherein the total income disclosed under the head C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ler in shares or whether the shares assets sold was an investment stock-in-trade was determined on the basis of the position treatment given by the department in preceding years'. On conclusion, the learned AR for the assessee also drew our attention to various judicial pronouncements wherein the findings in the current year were based on the position in the earlier years. The learned DR on the other hand vehemently relying on the order of CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer stated that the mere investment shown in the books of account does not mean anything and the frequency of transaction and the conduct of the party clearly shows that he is a Trader in shares and not an Investor in shares. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccepted principle that same view should be adopted for the subsequent years, unless there is a material change in the facts. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 have categorically held as under : "... Strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Though, each assessment year being a unit, what was decided in one year might not apply in the following year; where a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year". The....