TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Del/2011, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 06.06.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Income - tax (Appeals)-XIX, New Delhi on the grounds inter alia that :- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ad in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,85,049/- by treating the business income as long term capital gains. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Memorandum of Association of the assessee company stipulated carrying on business of trading in investment and hence the income derived by such activity was business income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has failed to app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4/2007 Dt. 15.06.2007 in terms of which the Gain arising on account of disposal of shares held as Investment are liable to be taxed under the head Capital Gain and the decision of the CIT(A) in the likely placed other cases. 4. Because the action is under challenge on facts and law having followed the Hon'ble Delhi High Court overlooking the facts of said case. 5. Because the action is under challenge on facts and law in making an addition of Rs. 7,54,488/- on account of STT paid ignoring the fact that the appellant already disallowed the expenses in Computation of Income." 4. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the issue at hand are : Assessee filed return of income at Rs. 2,67,34,667/- by making tax at special ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue is low i.e. less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, in view of the CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 which is applicable retrospectively in view of the decision rendered by coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Dinesh Madhavlal Patel [TS-469- ITAT-2019(Ahd)] 2019-TIOL-1556-ITAT-AHM dated 14th August, 2019, the appeal of the Revenue being ITA No.3910/Del/2011 is dismissed on account of low tax effect. 8. However, in view of the grounds raised by the assessee, the assessee's appeal being ITA No.3634/Del/2011 is being disposed off on merits. ITA No.3634/Del/2011 (ASSESSEE'S APPEAL) GROUNDS NO.1, 2, 3 & 4 9. Undisputedly, Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT (A) have made/confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,75,11,065/- by treating t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,34,129. The assessee had classified the gains into long term and short term, after taking into consideration the period of holding of shares. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the claim of the assessee on the basis that the number of shares and frequency of transactions were in the nature of regular business activities. He held that assessee had done the same with a motive to maximize the profits immediately rather than holding them as investment. We do not agree with such approach of the Assessing Officer as earning of maximum profit is the object of the assessee in both type of transactions i.e. investment and trade, hence, it cannot be a sole criteria to test the nature of the transaction. If the assessee has sold a share within ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omplete delivery of shares keeping a long term in view as 84% of shares are held for more than one year, transacting in some shares in short term to alter its investment vision and goal cannot be considered as an action borne out to do trade. It happens when the vision is long term, some shares thought purchased are dropped out from portfolio either because sufficient funds are not available to make them reach to a level to accumulate capital or because of some other allied reasons. 26.2 It is not the finding of the Assessing Officer or the Learned CIT(Appeals) that these shares were shown as stock in trade or the assessee was not correct in showing these shares as investment. We thus do not find infirmity in the claim of the assessee tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noring the fact the appellant already disallowed the expense in its computation of income. Full arguments will be advanced at the time hearing." 29. Vide this ground the assessee challenged the action of the AO in adding back STT paid of Rs. 7,54,488/-. 30. The AR filed detailed written submissions, in this regard which are as under: "Regarding SIT paid of Rs. 754488/- it is to mention that the Appellant itself added back the SIT paid amounting to Rs. 754488/-. Further adding back the same expense which has already been added back in the income of the appellant, is not correct, hence it requires deletion." 31. It is seen that while working out disallowance u/s 14A the assessee has taken credit for STT paid. Hence, the addition of Rs....