TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital gains" offered by the assessee under the head "capital gains". 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Nishit Gandhi, claimed that the impugned issue, on identical facts was decided by the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for A.Y. 2006-07 vide order dated 18/02/2015 (ITA No.3520/Mum/2010). This factual matrix was consented to be correct by the ld. DR, Shri M. Murli. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is retired director, declared income of Rs. 33,36,300/- in her return on 28/07/2007, which was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) assessing the total income at Rs. 33,36,300/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in directing to treat the STC Gain on sale of shares of Rs. 13,60,155/ - as a STC Gain instead of business income made by AO in his assessment order, ignoring the fact that:- a) The assessee has deployed his fund with an intention of earning profit of such funds and there was no intention of the assessee to appreciate the investment so made during the year. b) The assessee had no intention to hold her shares in order to earn regular income out of such purchases. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the in depth analysis made by the AO before treating the gain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of mutual funds sold after 01.10.2004 aggregating to Rs. 15,25,348/- [on sale of shares Rs. 13,60,155/- & redemption of mutual funds Rs. 1,65,193/-] as business income by the A.O instead of applying a special rate @ 10% as provided uls.111A of the Act. The A.R of the appellant vide his letter dtd. 20.12.09 contended that the short term capital gain of Rs. 15,25,348/- [13,60,155/- + 1,65,193] is not correct and in support of his claim he has contended that the correct figure of short term capital gain shall be Rs. 12,86,854/- [11,21,661+1,65,193]. The AO after relying on the CBDT's circular bearing No.4/2007 dated 15.6.2007 and after having given other reasonings treated the long term capital gain of Rs. 14,10,430/- and short term ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord any reason for deviating from the earlier stand of the Department. I have observed that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit mentioned supra, therefore, the AO is directed to treat the long term capital gains on sale of shares and sale of mutual funds, sold after 01.10.2004 aggregating to Rs. 14,10,430/- [on sale of shares Rs. 5,87,180/- & on mutual funds Rs. 8,23,250/-] as such and allow the exemption to the appellant u/s.10(38) of the Act. Apart from the above, the AO is also directed to verify the transaction of shares and mutual funds which are delivery based and treat the same as giving rise to capital gains and charge the STCG at concessional rate of 10% as provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee either as long term or short term was accepted by the department in all the earlier assessment years u/s.143(3). The assessee has also placed on record the assessment order framed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y.2005-06 & 2006-07. After giving detailed finding at para 4, the CIT(A) found that assessee has earned long term capital gains of Rs. 14,10,430/- on sale of shares and mutual funds which is liable to exemption u/s.10(38). The CIT(A) has also directed AO to verify the transaction of shares and mutual funds held for less than twelve months, which are delivery based and treat the same as giving rise to short term capital gains. The findings recorded by CIT(A) have not been controverted by ld. DR. Accordingly, we do not find any reason ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the view that in the absence of contrary material, consistency has to be maintained. For which we are fortified by following decisions:- i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 IT....