TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Gains of Business or Profession". Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted that a sum of Rs. 9,56,718/- as Short Term Capital Gain. 2.On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the interest charged u/s. 234B & 234C of the I.T.Act. The Assessee further prays that interest charged U/s. 234B & 234C be deleted. 3.The Assessee craves leave to add, alter and delete any of the above grounds. Assessee had also filed additional grounds of appeal vide her letter dated 21.05.2012 and same read as under: 1) On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Krsna Funds @ 10%, that assessee had dealt in number of shares, that the period of holding showed that intention of the assessee was to trade in shares, that the prime intention of the assessee was to trade in shares, and not make any investment, that whenever there was an opportunity to earn profit assessee had sold her shares, her motive was to earn maximum profit, that the entire activity of the assessee had to be considered as business in trading in shares, that by no stretch of imagination same could be termed as investment. Finally, he held that she had carried out the business of trading in shares and that profit/loss on such activity had to be treated as her business income. 2.1.Assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s International (ITA No.1368/Del/2010- AY 2006-07 dated 16.12.2011.She held that transaction carried out by the assessee were not investments. FAA further held that principals of res judicata would not apply to the case under consideration, that the portfolio manager acted as agent of the appellant and had been trading on the latter's behalf, that the PMS manager had been charging commission and or expenses to act on behalf of the assessee and would render the profit to the assessee, that since the PMS manager acted in the capacity of an agent who had traded in shares on behalf of the assessee the profits arising therefrom had to be treated as profits from business, that there was no difference between similar transactions carried out by an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supra) in that matter the only issue was as whether the profit arising to the assessee through the transaction carried out for purchase and sale of shares and mutual funds through PMS was to be assessed under the head Business Income or Capital Gains. After considering the decision delivered by the Pune bench of the Tribunal Ara Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd.(Supra) it was held that in the PMS there was no assured guarantee against the loss or degeneration of capital, as per the SEBI guidelines the portfolio manager was authorised to purchase and sale of shares on behalf of the client against the securities after obtaining the written permission, that the portfolio managers were not authorised to undertake purchase/sale of securities that w....