2012 (12) TMI 1186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned on sale of shares at ₹ 10,58,86,408/- was Short Term Capital Gains and not 'business income' specifically in view of the fact that in the immediately preceding Assessment Year 2007-08 the assessee had declared similar sales as 'business income' and not short term capital gain. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in believing the assessee's explanation regarding setting off of short term capital gain in Assessment Year 2007-08 against business losses because the same is an after thought as no such short term capital gain stand declared in the relevant column of e-filed return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....45,496 shares of DLF Ltd. Thereafter in FY 2007-08 appellant purchased 33,000 shares on 24th April,2007 and 98,496 shares on 30th April,2007 of DLF Ltd. There was no other purchases of shares during the year. The shares purchased during the FY 2006-07 and in the month of April,2007 were shown as investment in the balance sheet of the appellant. It is claimed by the appellant that these shares were purchased for investment purposes and same have been shown under the head 'investment portfolio' separately. It is seen from the investment schedule that besides investment in DLF shares, there were 3-4 other companies mostly unquoted shares wherein the investment have been made by the appellant. It is also seen that shares were purchased in FY 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... purposes. In view of the above we up hold the decision of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 7. Ground no.2 is misconceived, as there is no such finding by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order, hence the same is dismissed. 8. Coming to ground no.3, the argument of the Departmental Representative, based on the finding of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is devoid of merit. Wrong punching of client code, requiring subsequent change in client code is rectified by the National Stock Exchange, which has formulated rules and strictly implements them. It is not correct to assume that these changes were fraudulently done without any investigation and evidence. Such surmise cannot....