2015 (5) TMI 794

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity and, therefore, he treated the short-term capital gains of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- approximately as business income. Aggrieved by the order the assessee preferred an appeal. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that the claim put forward by the assessee was correct and the refusal on the part of the Assessing Officer to accept the short-term capital gains was incorrect. To be precise, the views expressed by the C.I.T. were as follows:-            " 4.1. I have gone through the assessment order and the submission of the appellant. The observations of Assessing Officer that the Managing Director of the appellant company is also a director in a share brokerage company which has acted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er future and option or speculative cash market transactions is shown as speculative business income/loss and income from delivery based share transaction is shown as Capital Gain. It is well accepted principle that an investor can have share transactions with a motive of making investment as well as trading if they are separately shown in books of account. In fact the separate treatment of delivery based purchase and sale of shares under the Investment portfolio and sale under future and options etc. with profit motive by appellant is the only reliable evidence available to show that the transactions related to delivery based purchase and sale of shares resulting in capital gain are entered into with the intention of investment. As far as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dend by investing the same.            2) Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in not relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Circle 7 Kol vs. Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 2005-2006 which squarely applies to the facts of the present case. " Mr. Saraf, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant/revenue contended that there are more than one thousand transactions in the year which is not in consistence with the conduct of an investor. The dividend earned is restricted to less than Rs. 2,50,000/- and the trading was for Rs. 9 crores approximately. The Managing Director of the assessee is also a Managing Director....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee is also a Managing Director of a firm of share brokers cannot have any decisive value. The question essentially is a question of fact. The CIT Appeal and the learned Tribunal have concurrently held against the views of the Assessing Officer. On the basis of the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant, it is not possible to say that the views entertained by the CIT Appeal or the learned Tribunal were not a possible view. Therefore, the judgment cannot be said to be perverse. Mr. Saraf added that the learned Tribunal does not appear to have examined the issue and merely endorsed the view of the CIT Appeal. It can be pointed out that an Appellate Authority is not ordinarily required in law to give its own reasons....