TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase and the law applicable The addition as made / sustained by the authorities below being totally on erroneous premise is to be deleted and the loss as returned by the appellant is to be accepted. 2.2 In any case and without prejudice, the authorities below have erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant is a wholly owned subsidiary of venture capital fund and formed to make investments in Healthcare provider companies. On proper appreciation of facts and the law applicable, the conclusion drawn by the authorities below that investments made in health care provider companies is in the nature of business is wholly erroneous both on facts and law applicable is to be rejected. 2.3.The Authorities below have erred in not considering that: a) the shares held were capital assets and not of business asset. b) the appellant has shown these shares as investments and not as stock in trade. c) most of the shares were held for a significant period of time. d) there are no borrowed funds. e)most of the shares were held for a significant period of time there are no borrowed funds The learned assessing officer has erred in passing the order in the manner passed by him ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....officer had erred in treating the transfer of shares as business activity and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same by relying upon the earlier year's appellate orders. On the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable, the conclusion drawn by the authorities below being totally on erroneous premise is to be deleted. 2.2 The Authorities below have also erred in not considering that: a) the shares held were capital assets and not of business asset. b) the appellant has shown these shares as investments and not as stock in trade. c) The shares were held for capital appreciation. d) there are no borrowed funds On proper appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable it would be clear that the sale of such shares should be treated as transfer of capital assets only. 2.3 The learned assessing officer had erred in holding that: a) the appellant is engaged in medical and health care services; b) investing in the shares of similar company would amount to business activity; 3. the gains / loss on sale of such shares is of the nature of business income; and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture of business is wholly erroneous both on facts and law applicable is to be rejected. 2.3.The Authorities below have erred in not considering that: a)the shares held were capital assets and not of business asset. b)the appellant has shown these shares as investments and not as stock in trade. c)most of the shares were held for a significant period of time. On proper appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable it would be clear that the gain on sale of shares are to be taxed as capital gains only. On proper appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable, it would be clear that the gains on sale of shares and units of mutual fund are to be taxed as capital gains only. 2.4. The learned authorities below have erred in holding that: a) the appellant is engaged in medical and health care services; b) investing in the shares of similar company would amount to business activity; c) the gains on sale of such shares and units of mutual fund is of the nature of business income; Such conclusions being erroneous on facts and contrary to applicable law are to be disregarded. 2.5. The appellant never carried on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef to public in all branches of medical schemes by all available means; * to purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, established, maintain, operate, run and or administer hospitals, medicare, health care, diagnostic, health aides and research, centres; * to carry out medical and clinical research by engaging in the research and development of all medical sciences and therapies; * to undertake, promote or engage in all kinds of research including clinical research and development work required to promote, assessed or engaged in setting up hospitals, health care centres and facilities for manufacturing medical equipment etc; to provide, encourage, any shade or promote facilities for the discovery, improvement or development of new method of diagnostic, understanding and prevention and treatment of diseases. 2.1 Amongst ancillary objects, it has been submitted that assessee performs following functions: * to conduct and to carry out experiments and to provide funds for research work and for scholarships, stipend, remuneration and/or other payments or aided to any person or persons engaged in research work, or work connected with or conducive to research and to encourage and to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....investment in the balance sheet. It has been vehemently argued that investment was main objective of assessee as special purpose vehicle created by parent company. It has been submitted that there is no other activity other than making investments in healthcare companies suggested by, the parent company, India Advantage Fund-V. It has been submitted that assessee do not have any other investments carried out in any other companies other than healthcare companies, and that assessee did not have any intention to trade in shares. It is thus submitted that the activity carried on by assessee cannot be treated as business income. He placed reliance on various authorities in support of the contentions as under: Sl.No Particulars 1 PCIT Vs Bhanuprasad D Trivedi (2018) 94 Taxmann.com 114(SC) 2 PCIT Vs Bhanuprsad D Trivedi (HUF)(2018) 87 Taxmann.com 137 (Gujarat) 3 PCIT Vs Telestar Investments (P)Ltd., (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 89 (Kar.) 4 CIT Vs Tejas Securities (2017) Taxman.com 486 (Ka.) 5 CIT Vs Bagmane Developers (P)Ltd., (2017) 88 Taxmnn.com 105(Pune-Trib.) 6 Suresh Babulal Shah(HUF) Vs DCIT (2016) 75 Taxmann.com 105 (Pune-Trib.) 7 ACIT Vs Jignesh Madhukant Mehta ....