TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue read as under: - 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of fact and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in computing the capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by the assessee under gift, whether the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset or the year in which the assessee became the owner of the asset? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of fact and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of profit transferred due to client code changes in spite of the fact that the assessee has done this transfer during the market hours and the volume of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. Before us, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the AO. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel of the assessee supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and relies on the decision in the case of Manjula J. Shah (supra), Arun Shungloo Trust vs. CIT (2012) 249 CTR (Del) 294 and CIT vs. Smt. Daisy Devaiah (2014) 50 taxmann.com 234 (Karn.). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. It has been held by Bombay High Court in Manjula J. Shah (supra) that the expression "held by the assessee" used in Explanation (iii) to section 48 has to be understood in the context and harmoniously with other Sections and as the cost of acquisition stipulated in section 49 means the cost for which the previous ow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns he was likely to make by 31st March, 2010 and he had transferred the gains arising out of the transactions in the scrips to various apparently unrelated beneficiaries to reduce his taxable income significantly. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sambhavnath Investment vs. ACIT [ITA No. 3109/Mum/2011], ITO vs. E Net Infoways P. Ltd. [ITA No. 2180/Del/2012] and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 9. Before us, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the AO. He submits that the assessee has systematically transferred the gains of Rs. 1,19,28,273/- to other persons on all such trades where t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have entered into these transactions on behalf of assessee." Also in the case of E Net Infoways P. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has held: "Wrong punching of client code, requiring subsequent change in client code is rectified by the NSE, which has formulated rules and strictly implements them. It is not correct to assume that these changes were fraudulently done. Mistake has occurred due to wrong punching of client code by the staff of the broker and the same was later on rectified with the NSE. It may be mentioned that even the NSE was aware of the fact that client code was initially punched wrong and thereafter it has been corrected by the broker. There is no illegality noticed in this change of client code. This is a mer....