2017 (1) TMI 1291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') challenges the order dated 11th September, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The appeal urges the following question of law for our consideration:- "(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Trib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (CIT(A)). By the order dated 12th December, 2011, CIT(A) on examination of the facts recorded the following undisputed facts in respect of Respondent-assessee : (a) She had two portfolios, one dealing in shares as business and the other as its investment; (b) She was an investor over the years and had consistently treated the subject s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rieved the Revenue carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal dated 11th September, 2013 on going through the facts in detail found that it was always the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase to hold the shares as investments. Further it took into consideration the holding period, treatment given by the respondent assessee to its investment in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Rs. 8.47 crores while in the earlier years it was well below Rs. 3 crores and the dividend received from the subject assessment year was Rs. 2.55 lakhs, while in earlier years it was less than 1.50 lakhs. Therefore in the above view it is submitted that the impugned order is suspect and the appeal ought to be entertained. 7. We find that the distinction made on behalf of the Revenue does not ....