2026 (5) TMI 1345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No. 591/Mum/2017. The only substantial question of law projected in the memorandum of the Appeal, is as follows:- "(A) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting tax income earned by the assessee from share transaction as income from business and considering the same as Long/Short Term capital gain by the assessee and setting aside revised the assessment of the CIT under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ?" 3. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are that:- The Respondent-Assessee had filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-09, declaring therein total income of Rs. 2,63,94,060/-. She had claimed sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....02/2013 was, thereafter, passed thereby giving effect to the Order dated 23/11/2012 passed under Section 263 of the Act, thus determining the total income at Rs.10,46,03,370/-. The ITAT had upheld the Order passed under Section 263 to the extent that the reassessment order of the Assessing Officer was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. However, it had interfered with the Order under Section 263 with respect to the direction to make the impugned additions. 8. Accordingly, the scrutiny assessment proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer and necessary Order dated 31/03/2015 was passed under Sections 143(3) and 254 of the I.T. Act thereby holding that the share trading income was the business in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the principle of consistency, the learned ITAT allowed appeal by accepting both the aforesaid grounds taken in the appeal. 12. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the addition on account of dividend stripping under Section 94(7) of the Act was unjustified. 13. While considering this ground, the ITAT has observed that the learned CIT(A) had noted that during the proceeding under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, the learned PCIT had analyzed the stripping and confirmed the disallowance. However, it was observed that the Assessing Officer disallowed the dividend without verifying the fact. The Assessing Officer made the addition only on the observation of learned PCIT. The Authorized Representative of the assessee had placed on r....