TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1486
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide his separate orders dated 30-12-2009 and 31.12.2009 for assessment year 2007-08. 2. The first common issue in these appeals of Revenue is against the orders of CIT(A) deleting the addition of gains from share transaction treated as capital gains instead of business income as treated by Assessing Officer. For this, Revenue has raised following ground Nos. 1 to 4 in respect of both the appeals:- "1. That ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that gain from share transaction is to be treated as capital gain instead of business income without considering that the shares were not purchased or sale with the sole motive of investment which is evident from the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ratio between sales and purchases and accordingly held that the nature of activity of the assessee is in the nature of trade. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. Before CIT(A), assessee filed detailed chart of scrip-wise quantity of share purchase and sold during the year as well as closing balances. A.Y Purchases Sales Total capital gains 2004-05 Rs.1,35,39,873/- Rs.1,34,42,338/- Rs. 14,70,826/- 2005-06 Rs.2,77,01,509 /- Rs.2,68,41,493/- Rs.62,34,404/- 2006-07 Rs.2,33,63,411- Rs.2,42,19,374/- Rs.33,39,868/- 2007-08 Rs.1,25,77,039/- Rs.1,63,33,302/- Rs.33,39,868/- 2008-09 Rs.1,52,16,747/- Rs. 99,95,724/- Rs.23,06,713/- 2009-10 Rs. 29,78,006/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of the appellant. The detailed evidences and write up given by the appellant in support her arguments, substantiate her claim of being an investor. It is also clear that the assertion that she is an investor can only be challenged on the basis of her own records and transactions which could indicate that it is actually doing trading business. This is not there in the appellant's case and the AO has failed to do so other than making a long winding analysis of the guidelines laid out in CBDT Circular No.4/2007. The reliance of Assessing Officer on the decision of ITO Vs. Lily Exports Pvt. Ltd. of Hon'ble ITAT 'A' Bench, Kolkata is based on different facts and cannot be applied in the appellant's case. In the aforementioned case the Hon'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CG, as the case may be, out of these share transactions. We uphold the order of CIT(A) and this issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 6. Similar are the facts in the case of Dulal Janardhan Kumar Kothari (HUF) in ITA No. 1433/Kol/2011 for AY 2007-08 and CIT(A) has also deleted exactly on same facts and proposition of law, we taking a consistent view, confirm the order of CIT(A). The Ld. DR as well as Ld. Counsel for the assessee conceded that the facts are exactly identical in both the cases. Hence, revenue's appeal in this case is also dismissed. 7. One more issue in ITA No. 1433 of 2011 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) in restricting the addition of Rs.5000/-. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.5: "5. The Ld. ....