Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2013 (3) TMI 742

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 vide his separate orders dated 17.12.2009 and 06.12.2010 respectively. 2. The only common issue in both the appeals of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) directing the AO to treat the profit from share transaction as capital gain instead of business income. For this, revenue has raised following ground in AY 2008-09: "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to treat the profit from share transactions as Capital Gain instead of Business income by failing to take cognizance of the magnitude & frequency of transactions, purchase to sale ratio, multiplicity of transactions in particular scrips and negligible dividend income ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AO further observed that the assessee has entered into transactions in scrips of 60 companies having about 260 trade transactions and the period of holding of scrips ranges from 1 day to 315 days. According to AO, the opening stock of shares stood as 111838 shares, purchases made during the year stood at 898860 shares and sales during the year was of 915698 shares. According to AO, the assessee has invested borrowed funds to the extent of ₹ 6,74,195/- for buying and selling of shares on which short term capital gain was declared. According to AO, in view of the above activities, the assessee is engaged in the business activity of share trading and has not made any investment for the purpose of capital appreciation or for earning of di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... days - 13 d. 21 to 30 days - 15 e. 31 to 60 days - 22 f. 61 to 90 days - 18 g. 91 to 120 days - 05 h. 121 to 150 days - 07 i. 151 to 180 days - 05 j. 181 to 210 days - 03 k. 211 to 240 days - 02 l. 241 to 27 days - 03 m. 271 to 300 days - 01 n. 301 to 315 days - 02 v. Opening stock of shares stood at 111,838 shares; purchases made during the year stood at 898,860 shares; sales during the year 915,698 shares; closing stock at the end of the year stood at 95,000 shares. vi. If portion of stock sold is eliminated from the total sales the ratio between purchase and sales during the year stands at 1.12:1." In view of the above, the AO after discussing at length treated the short term capital gain as trading income of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....purchased and held within 1 to 3 days. In these 10 transactions, the appellant has incurred net loss of ₹ 58,014/- as against the overall profit of ₹ 40.22 lakhs disclosed under the head short-term capital gain. If the holding period is considered from 1 to 10 days, total transactions were 26 and for the period 1 to 20 days, the transactions were 40 in which the profit of ₹ 5,80,952/- and ₹ 1,65,883/- was earned respectively. Thus, in the transactions of period of holding 1 to 20 days the net income of the appellant was ₹ 1,65,883/- as against the total short-term capital gain of ₹ 40,22,546/-. It means that more than 95% of the profit by way of short-term capital gain was derived by the appellant from th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CIT, Range-31, Kol. and the capital gain declared by the assessee was accepted u/s. 143(3) of the Act. However, this contention of the appellant was not accepted by the A.O. for the reason that the facts in the case of appellant's father were different than the facts in the case of the appellant. However, on perusal of notice issued u/s. 263 and order passed by the Hon'ble CIT, Kol-XI, Kol., it is observed that the observations of the A.O. is not correct, because the facts in the case of appellant's father for A.Y. 2006-07 are exactly similar to the facts in the case of the appellant during the year under consideration as well as in earlier years." 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Th....