| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2596 2011 SLD 2596 (2011) 334 ITR 192 |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
M.M. KUMAR AND, JITENDRA CHAUHAN, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
M.M. KUMAR AND, JITENDRA CHAUHAN, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of Income Tax
v.
Amit Modi
Law:
Section:
Section 45, read with section 28(i), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Chargeable as - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee was engaged in transactions of sale and purchase of shares - Assessing Officer was of view that income arising from sale of shares was to be taxed as 'business income' - Tribunal, however, held that assessee invested in shares with intention of holding same as investment and surplus arising on sale of such investment was to be assessed under head 'capital gains' - Whether finding recorded by Tribunal was a finding of fact and, thus, no substantial question of law arose therefrom - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] FACTS The assessee was engaged in the transactions of sale and purchase of shares. The Assessing Officer was of view that income arising from sale of shares was to be taxed as 'business income'. The Tribunal, however, held that assessee invested in shares with the intention of holding the same as investment and the surplus arising on sale of such investment was to be assessed under the head 'capital gains'. On revenue's appeal: HELD The findings recorded by the Tribunal and affirming those of the Commissioner (Appeals) were unexceptionable. The Tribunal had discussed various relevant factors to infer the intention and the nature of transactions and concluded that by no stretch of imagination the surplus made by the assessee could be regarded as surplus from the business of dealing with shares. These were necessarily findings of fact. There was, thus, no merit in the appeal. No substantive question of law warranting its admission would arise. Dismissed. [Para 3] CASES REFERRED TO G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC)(para 2). Ms. Urvashi Dhugga for the Appellant. JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J.- The instant appeal filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is directed against the order dated April 27, 2009, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), Chandigarh ('the Tribunal'), in I. T. A. No. 650/Chandi/2008, in respect of the assessment year 2005-06. 2. The short issue raised before us is whether the profits emerging from the investment in…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492