TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment under the head business income instead of capital gain. 3. Before us, learned counsel admitted that similar issues were involved in earlier years also, wherein the Tribunal has decided this issue against the assessee right from assessment years 2001-02 to 2006-07. 4. After considering the entire facts of the case and the issue involved, we find that so far as sale of shares/investment and the income arising from such sales have been treated as business income by the department which has been upheld by the Tribunal right from the A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2006-07. Thus consistent with the view taken in the earlier years, we hold that Ld.CIT(A) justified in treating the income from purchase and sale of shares/mutual funds as income from bus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Officer erred in adding an amount of Rs. 16,69,975/- (being Long Term Capital Gains which were ;exempt under section 10(38) under the head 'Share Trading Income' without appreciating the fact that once the profit on sale of investments aggregating to Rs. 7,52,681/- had been treated as business income, the same included profit on sale of all investments and accordingly, there was no question of making a separate addition." 9. Before us, learned counsel submitted that rectification application u/s 154 was also filed before the AO which has not been adjudicated upon. Even the grounds raised before the Ld.CIT(A) has not been properly adjudicate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submission and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders. Admittedly in the impugned assessment year, Rule 8D is not applicable. The assessee has already allocated expenditure of Rs. 13,90,651/- on a pro-rata basis, which can be said to be reasonable allocation of expenses for the purpose of earning of the exempt income. The assessing officer without finding any defect in such an attribution of expenses has blindly applied Rule 8D. Such an application of Rule 8D in the present assessment year is not applicable and therefore, disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) over and above the amount disallowed by the assessee is deleted. Accordingly ground no. 5 and 6 is treated as allowed. 13. From Ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant are situated in the same Poonam Chamber". The appellate explanation that 327 sq. ft. has been sold at a lesser value because of the setback in which it is situated and the other area of 946 sq. ft. has beef) sold at a higher rate because it is the main office area cannot be accepted. It is possible that the exact location of the areas concerned may have a bit of a difference regarding the pricing but from the details available it is seen that the difference as submitted by the appellant is almost double. As the appellant has sold the office premises at an actual value of Rs. 11099.37 per square feet this value would therefore be the actual market value of the areas in Poonam Chamber. The AO's reliance I find is on the details....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On the other hand Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that, for the same premises on a same building, there cannot be such a huge difference in the sale rate. It was already on the record that the assessee had sold the office area @ Rs. 11099 per sq.ft, then how another area of the same office premises has been sold almost at a half rate. Therefore, the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is justified. 17. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders. The assessing officer has made the addition by changing the sale value on the ground that, similar property in the same premises was sold at a rate of Rs. 11099 per sq.ft, then how t....