Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: due date for vat payment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: empanelment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TDS :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: cpt :: form 3cd
« From the Courts »
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs
 ransfers Of Hon’ble Members Of The ITAT (September 2016)
 M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Haryana State Road & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (P&H High Court)
 Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

ACIT, Circle 36(1) New Delhi 147, Vs. Sh. Naveen Shrivastava Ankur Apartment I.P.Extension New Delhi 110 092
September, 26th 2014
                    DELHI BENCHES : "E" NEW DELHI

                     BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY,A.M.
                          AND SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM

                           ITA no. 1369/Del/2012
                          Assessment Year : 2008-09

ACIT, Circle 36(1)         vs.    Sh. Naveen Shrivastava
New Delhi                         147, Ankur Apartment
                                  New Delhi 110 092
                                  PAN: AZLPS 2304 M

(Appellant)                                           (Respondent)

                    Appellant by:- Sh O.P.Sapra, Adv.
                Respondent by:- Shri Kayur Patel, Sr.D.R.



      This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the
Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi dt. 9.12.2011        for
the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.    Facts of the case are brought out at para 2, 3 and 4 of the assessment
order, which is extracted for ready reference.
"2. The assessee is drawing salary income from M/s Infoline Ltd. which is a
shares and derivatives broking concern.      The assessee has shown long term
capital gains amounting to Rs.30,64,964/- which have been claimed exempt
from taxation by virtue of section 10(38). In addition the assessee has also
shown short term gains of Rs.29,86,836/-.
3. The issue to be resolved in this case is whether the short term gains from
sale of shares should be treated as capital gains (as treated by the assessee) or
a business gain. The AR of the assessee vide order sheet entry dt. 10.12.2010
                                                                      Page 2 of 9

was asked to file complete details of short term capital gains in a tabular form
indicating date of purchase, date of sale, period of holding and profit/loss
booked on each scrip. Further the assessee was given a show cause as to why
capital gain from sale of shares be not treated as business income.
4. In response to this, assessee filed reply dt. 15.12.2010 the relevant portion
of which reproduced here under:
`The assessee is an employee with India Infoline Ltd. (Brokerage Company).
The assessee undertook single kinds of transaction in the capital market, that
which consisted in taking delivery of or investing in shares. The income from
investment activity was offered as capital gains. This position was accepted by
the Assessing Officer in the earlier years.
        Capital gains on sale of shares treat as investment income in earlier years
can't be treated as business income in subsequent years as per case CIT vs.
assessee Gopal Purohit.
Legal volume trading of shares does not per se mean activity is business.'

3.    The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee.           He recorded the
complete stock summary, script wise, at para 7 of his order and for the various
reasons given in his order held that the income from purchase and sale of
shares, is to be assessed under the head "profits and gains of business" instead
of short term capital gains shown by the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee
carried the matter in appeal.     The First Appellate Authority    granted relief.
Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us.

4.    Ld.D.R. Mr.Keyur Patel relied on the order of the AO and submitted that
the assessee had huge turnover of more than Rs.30 crores and most of the
scrips have been disposed off, either on the same day or within two to three
days, which demonstrates that the assessee was in fact trading in shares
regularly in an organized and systematic manner, employing the            facilities
provided by the broker firm, in which the assessee was employed and hence the
income in question was assessable under the head `income from business' and
not under the head `income from other sources'. He took this Bench to the
order of the AO and submitted that (a) the assessee cannot deny that his motive
in buying and    selling shares and to earn profit; (b) that the assessee has
                                                                    Page 3 of 9

purchased shares not with a view to invest or earn dividend but only to earn
immediate profits; (c ) the assessee was engaged in numerous transactions of
purchasing and selling a large quantity of shares in a systematic and organized
manner; (d) that the assessee during the entire PY has entered into transaction
of purchase and sale of shares of about 51 companies totaling to
Rs.15,70,60,989/- and these shares were sold over a value of Rs.16,01,54,267/-
and that most of the shares were not affected by actual delivery of shares, and
the holding period was less than 1 day in most of the cases.
(e) That the assessee's claim that he treats the shares as investments in the
books of accounts, but this classification in books of accounts does not reflect
the manifest intention of the assessee to deal in shares and to earn profit. He
referred to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) at page 15 and disputed the findings

5.    The Ld.Counsel for the assessee Mr.O.P.Sapra, Advocate, on the other
hand relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that ­
(a) the assessee is an individual, earning salary income, as well as long term
capital gains of Rs.30,64,968/- and short term capital gain of Rs.29,86,836/- in
addition to interest from bank;
(b) being an employee, the assessee has personal investments in shares
amounting to Rs.55,64,604/- as on 31.3.2008 and dividend was earned on them;
(c ) the shares were never held as stock-in-trade and were being held and
disclosed as investments, in the statement of affairs;
(d) the intention of the assessee while purchasing shares on delivery basis,
was to hold them as capital assets;
(f) there were no borrowed funds which were utilized for investment in shares;
(g) there was no frequency in purchasing and selling shares. The assessee was
engaged in buying shares for 92 days and for selling the shares on 85 days and
on 107 days, he was involved in both buying and selling of shares, which
demonstrates that he was active for less than one third of the whole year;
                                                                     Page 4 of 9

(h) closing value of investments in shares was taken at cost in the statement of
(i) sale proceeds of shares were never reflected as turnover;
(j) shares were held as investments with an intention of earning dividend
Reliance was placed on the following judgements.
     ·   CIT vs. Rohit Anand (Del) 327 ITR 445
     ·   ACIT vs. Naishadh V.Vachharajani    ITA No. 6429/Mum/2009 page 3 of
         the paper book
     ·   SM Amit Jain vs. ACIT in ITA 309/Del/2010 order dt. 30.6.2011
6.       Rival contentions heard.   On a careful consideration of the facts and

circumstances of the case and on a perusal of the papers on record as well as

the orders of the authorities below and case laws cited, we hold as follows.

7.       The assessee is an employee. He works with M/s Infoline Ltd. which is

a share broking concern.      The fact that the assessee is an investor is not

disputed by the Assessing Officer, as he has assessed the transaction of shares,

which were held for more than one year, under the head `long term capital

gains'. The issue for adjudication is whether the assessee should be considered

as an investor or as a trader, where shares are held for less than one year.

6.1.     We now consider the propositions laid down by various Courts and

Tribunals on this issue.

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rohit Anand (2010) reported

in 327 ITR 445 held as under:

"Where the Tribunal had found that the assessee was not a trader in stock but
only an investor and that the assessee had demonstrated that his intenstion was
never to trade in shares because the investment was out of his own funds, the
                                                                      Page 5 of 9

investment was not rotated frequently, the total number of transactions was
few, the treatment of the shares as investment in earlier years had been
accepted by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had taken delivery and made full
payment for such investment and that therefore the transactions were to be
treated as giving rise to capital gains and not profits and gains of business, on
appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that the factual findings of the final fact
finding authority were neither perverse nor contrary to record. No substantial
question of law arose."
6.2.     Applying the propositions laid down in these case laws to the facts of

the case, we hold as under.

6.3.     The AO has recorded the following facts:

a. The assesee carried out numerous and frequent transactions in the purchase
and sale of shares with high volume of Rs. 31.72 crores.

b. The holding period for most of the shares has been 1 to 3 days and some of
they shares have been sold on the same day.

c.     The asssessee is engaged profusely and frequently in a systematic and
organized manner in the business of buying and selling of shares and is engaged
in the share trading on a regular basis.

d.     The assessee is an employee of India Infoline Ltd. which is a share broking
concern and constantly kept himself abreast of the changes that were taking
place in the stock market and was accordingly buying and disposing off shares
using the infrastructure of the company.

e.     The assesee during the entire Previous Year had entered into a transaction
of purchase and sale of shares of a about 30 to 50 companies totaling to Rs.
15,70,60,989/- and these shares were sold for a value of Rs. 16,01,54,267/-.
f. Most of the transactions were not affected by actual delivery of shares and
the holding period was less than 1 day in most of the case. Res judicata does
not strictly apply to the Income Tax proceedings.
                                                                      Page 6 of 9

6.4.           The Ld.CIT(A) has not given any factual finding on the contrary

claims made by both the parties. The findings of the First Appellate Authority

can be summerised as follows:

a. The intention of the assessee could be inferred from the fact that the unsold
shares are shown as investments at the end of the year,

b. The investments are valued at cost or cost at market value whichever is less,

c. Investment was made in the shares out of own funds and not out of borrowed

d. In the immediately preceding year i.e., AY 2007-08, the assesee has shown
short term capital gain on sale of shares at Rs. 4,69,372/-,

e.     During the current year the assesee had shown income from long term
capital gain which also shows that the assessee has held these stocks for a
period of more than 1 year,

f. The assessee has stated that all the transactions were delivery based,

g. The assesee has filed details of holding period of all the shares and it is true
that in majority of the shares the holding period has been shown to be less than
30 days that all the shares have been posted through d-mat account.

6.5.           With these observations the First Appellate Authority has decided

the issue in favour of the assesee.

6.6.           The First Appellate Authority has not considered the fact that the

assessee's investment was amounting to Rs.55.64 lakhs, whereas the turnover in

purchase and sale of shares was Rs.31,72,15,256/-.          Such huge turnovers

definitely gives an indication that the assessee has done trading in shares. This

is a case where the assessee was well equipped being an employee of a stock
                                                                    Page 7 of 9

broking firm, having the entire infrastructure readily available for him, having

knowledge, information and acumen for carrying on        share trading.   By no

stretch of imagination an investor holding an investment of approximately Rs.56

lakhs would have a trading volume of approximately Rs.31 crores. Before us

the assessee has not filed any paper book, to come to a factual finding as to

the number of transactions and the values, where the assessee has purchased

and sold shares on the same day or within two or three days. The AO records

that most of the transactions have been done in this manner.           The First

Appellate Authority has not given any facts or figures to controvert this finding

of the AO. Merely because the assessee also is an investor in shares, it does

not mean that he would not have done trading in shares this year. For this

proposition we rely on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of

Gopal Goel. Even the argument that in the Previous Year the short term capital

gain amounting to Rs.4,69,272/- was declared and accepted, hence the short

term capital gain declared in this year of Rs.29,86,836/- has to be accepted as

such also does not carry any force for the reason that we do not know as to

what is the turnover for the previous Assessment Year and as to what are the

facts and figures of that year   and whether a considered view has been taken

by the department in this year. If the assessee had an intention of holding the

shares as investment, then purchase and sale of shares in such volumes and at

such high frequency is contradictory to such intention.     Classification in the

Balance Sheet is an indication but not a conclusive proof that the assessee is
                                                                        Page 8 of 9

only an investor. The figures that are available before us does demonstrate that

the assessee has traded in shares, in addition to him being an investor in shares.

6.7.   This does not rule out that the claim of the assessee that certain

transactions in shares can be classified as investments which are taxable as

short term capital gain. For example if a share is held for more than two or

three months and then sold, the transaction cannot be properly classified as

trading in shares. This segregation of profits between short term capital gain

and business income requires a further analysis of the transactions in question.

As the facts and figures have not been submitted before the Tribunal, we set

aside the matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law

after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

7.     In the result the appeal of    the   Revenue     is    allowed for statistical


       Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25th September, 2014.

                   Sd/-                                Sd/-

           (A.T. VARKEY)                         (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY)
         JUDICIAL MEMBER                        ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: the 25th September, 2014

                                                              Page 9 of 9

Copy of the Order forwarded to:

   1. Appellant; 2.Respondent; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.Guard File

                                                        By Order

                                                     Asst. Registrar
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Enterprise Resource Planning Solutions ERP Solutions Enterprise Resource Planning Software Solutions ERP Software Solutions Supply Chain Management Solutions SCM Solutions Supply Chain Management Software Solutions SCM Software Solutions Enterprise Resource Planning Solutions India ERP Solutions India Enterprise Resource Planning Software Solutions India ERP Software Solutions India Supply Chain Management Solutions India SCM Solutions India Supply Chain Management Software Solutions India SCM Software Solutions India

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions