Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-21 Delhi v. Ashokkumar

4 ITA 592/2015 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-21 DELHI Appellant Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, Senior Standing counsel with Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra,Advocate.

VERSUS

ASHOKKUMAR Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER o/o 17.08.2015 CM Nos.15395/2015 &15396/2015(for exemption)

1. Exemptions allowed subjectto alljustexceptions. ITA Nos.591&592of2025 Iof[3] 2015:DHC:11387-DB

2. The applications are disposed of. TTA Nos.591/2015&592/2015.

3. Thesetwo appeals bythe Revenue under Section260A oftheIncome Tax Act,1961('Act')are directed against acommon impugned order dated 2"'' March 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal('ITAT')inITA Nos. 1046/Del/2012 and 1314/Del/2012 for Assessment Years ('AYs') 2007-08 and 2008-09respectively.

4. The common question that arises in both appeals is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)] was justified in reversing the Assessing Officer's ('AO')treatment of the income of the Assesseefortrading inshares asabusinessincomeinstead ofcapitalgains?

5. There are three aspects that have been examined that is the substantial nature oftransactions,the manner of maintaining books ofaccounts,the magnitude of purchases and sales and the ratio between purchases and sales to determine the nature of transactions. Although the AO held againstthe Assessee,both CIT(A)and the ITAT have concurrently found onfactsthatonthe abovethree parameters being applied to thetransactions ITA Nos.591&592of2015 2of[3] inthetwo AYs,itcould notbe said thatthe Assessee wasin factessentially trading in shares and the income therefrom should be treated as business income. In particular,ithasbeen afindingin para43ofthe orderofthe CIT (A)which hasbeen concurred with bytheITAT.

6. No substantial question oflaw arisesfor determination.

7. The appeals are dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR,J VIBHU BAKHRU,J AUGUST 17,2015 ITA Nos.591 &592of2015 Page3of[3]