TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 1013
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so a common point between the rival counsels that the issues involved and the facts and circumstances relating to both the assessees stand on identical footing and are covered by the precedents in the own cases of the captioned two assessees of earlier years. 2. In this background, we may now proceed to consider and dispose of the captioned appeals. 3 3. First, we may take-up the cross-appeals in ITA No. 703 & 665/PN/2012 preferred by the assessee and the Revenue respectively for assessment year 2008-09 in the case of KRA Holding & Trading Pvt. Ltd., Pune. In the appeal of the Revenue directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 20.10.2011, the solitary issue raised by the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in treating the income earn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal before us. 5. Before us it was a common point between the parties that the order of the Tribunal dated 31st May, 2011 (supra) for assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 continues to hold the field and has not being altered by any higher authority. Further, in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 also the Tribunal vide order in ITA Nos. 356 & 240/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 has upheld the stand of the assessee to the effect that income earned from sale and purchase of shares was assessable as 'capital gain' instead of 'business income' as contended by the Assessing Officer. 6. In view of the aforesaid precedents in the assessee's own case, we find no error on the part of the CIT(A) in deciding the issue in favour of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal in the assessee's own case in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue vide order dated 31st May, 2011 (supra). However, the CIT(A) noticed that subsequently Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of one Shri Homi K. Bhabha vs. ITO in ITA No. 3287/Mum/2009 decided a similar issue against the assessee and therefore he held the issue against the assessee. In view of the aforesaid, assessee is in further appeal before us. 11. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that similar stand of the CIT(A) in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 came up before the Tribunal in ITA No. 356 & 240/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 and after considering the divergent view of the Mumbai Bench of the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nditure by way of Portfolio Management Fee representing payments to ENAM Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd. while computing the income under the head 'Capital Gains'. After noticing the aforesaid the Tribunal concluded as under in para 11 of its order dated 25.07.2012 :- "11. The decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Homi K. Bhabha vs. ITO was brought to our notice by the learned DR wherein it was held that Portfolio Management Scheme fees is not deductible against capital gains. The decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of KRA Holding & Trading was not followed by the Mumbai Bench in the above cited decision. The Mumbai Bench following other decisions of the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal....