2017 (1) TMI 808

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me Tax (Appeals) is wrong, perverse, illegal, against the statutory provisions and liable to be set aside. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in treating the investment in shares made by the Appellant as stock-in-trade. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer assessing the loss of Rs. 2,32,39,872/- claimed as short term capital loss and Rs. 1,49,58,2807- claimed as long term capital loss under head 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession'. 4. That....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... education. In order to fully utilise its surplus funds the assessee had entered into a discretionary portfolio management service agreement with Relegated Securities Ltd., in June 2006, and the assessee handed over its surplus funds to the portfolio manager. The assessee declared short term capital loss and long term capital loss for frequent transactions in shares which were not claimed by the assessee during the year. After going through the submissions made by the assessee Ld. AO treated the sale and purchase of shares as trading activity in shares done in preceding assessment years. Ld. AO also disallowed an expenses of Rs. 4,68,503/- and towards expenses relating to the earning of exempt income. Aggrieved by the assessment order passe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....head capital gain and not as business income. The reason being that the assessee's business was not that of share transaction but of providing online and real time education to retail and institutional plans on a variety of programmes and subject. In fact in earlier year also the CIT(A) has held the same. Therefore, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed. As relates to Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue, the depreciation has been rightly allowed by the CIT(A) on the basis of decision in the case of M/s. Datacraft India Limited vs. DCIT passed by the Special Bench ITAT Mumbai and also Delhi High Court's decision in case of CIT vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. wherein it was held that computer accessories and peripherals such as ....