ACIT 13(3), MUMBAI v. RAVINDRAKUMAR AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

ITA 2063/MUM/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2010

Appeal Details

RSA Number 206319914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ACRPA3765D
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2063/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant ACIT 13(3), MUMBAI
Respondent RAVINDRAKUMAR AGGARWAL, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted D
Date Of Final Hearing 19-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 19-04-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 02-04-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN (JM) & B. RAMAKOTAIAH (A M) I.T.A.NO. 2063/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-0 6) DCIT 13(3) ROOM NO. 430 4 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. VS. SHRI RAVINDRAKUMAR AGGARWAL 14/16 BHANDARI CROSS LANE 1 ST FLOOR VADGADI MUMBAI-400 003. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN/GIR NO. : ACRPA3765D ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI T.T. JACOB ORDER PER N.V. VASUDEVAN JM :- THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.1.2009 OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XIII MUMBAI RELATING T O A.Y. 2005-06. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS FOLLOWS :- 1(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO TREAT THE PROFIT EARNED FROM INVESTMENT ACTIVITY AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. (II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT T REATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS N OT A DECISIVE FACTOR. (III) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE D EALT IN NUMEROUS TRANSACTIONS BOTH IN VOLUMES AND IN FREQUE NCY IN AN ORGANIZED MANNER. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CI T(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. SHRI RAVINDRAKUMAR AGGARWAL 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF TRADING IN DYES AND CHEMICALS. FOR A.Y. 2005-06 THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 58 09 070/-. T HE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 56 50 910/-. O N PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT SHORT T ERM CAPITAL GAIN AROSE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURC HASE OF SHARES. CONSIDERING THE VOLUME AND FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTION IN SHARES THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE GAIN ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IN REPLY TO THE QUERY OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS :- I) ASSESSEES MAIN OCCUPATION IS BUSINESS OF TRADING I N DYES AND CHEMICALS FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. II) THE SHARES ARE REGULARLY SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INVES TMENT IN SHARES. INVESTMENT IS MADE OUT OF SURPLUS AND THE P OST TAX INCOME IS INVESTED IN SHARES. IT WAS BUILT OVER A P ERIOD OF TEN YEAR. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVESTED MONEY IN MUTUAL FU NDS. III) THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED A SUBSTANTIAL DIVIDEND INCO ME OF RS. 3 55 139/- DURING THE YEAR. IV) INVESTMENT IS ALWAYS MADE IN SHARES OF QUOTED REPU TED COMPANIES BASED ON SOUND RECORDS. V) FUNDS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT ARE OWNED FUNDS AND NOT BORROWED FUNDS. VI) DELIVERY OF SUCH SHARES IS ALWAYS TAKEN. SHARES ARE HELD IN DE- MAT ACCOUNT BEFORE THE SAME BEING SOLD. VII) PERIOD OF HOLDING IS MORE THAN SIX MONTHS. VIII) THE ASSESSEE INCURRED THE LOSS IN F&O OF RS. 6 82 5 36/- AND HAS NOT ADJUSTED THIS LOSS AGAINST THE SHORT TERM C APITAL GAIN. IX) AIM OF ANY INVESTOR IS ALWAYS TO EARN A PROFIT AND OBVIOUSLY NOT TO SUFFER A LOSS. THIS CANNOT BE HELD AS THE ONLY B ASIS FOR DETERMINING THE SHARE TRADING AS BUSINESS INCOME. X) DUE TO VOLATILITY IN THE STOCK MARKET ASSESSEE AS SENSIBLE INVESTOR BOOKED PROFITS WHEN THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN STOCK MARKET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING IN DYES AND CHEMICALS AND THAT INVESTME NT IN SHARES WERE MADE OUT OF SURPLUS AND POST TAX INCOME WILL NOT BE RELEVANT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO OF THE VI EW THAT THE FACT THAT SHRI RAVINDRAKUMAR AGGARWAL 3 THE ASSESSEES RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING SIMILAR I NCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN IN THE PAST WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY T HE REVENUE WILL ALSO NOT BE RELEVANT BECAUSE PRINCIPLE OF RES-JUDICATA A RE NOT APPLICABLE IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS A LSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE USED OWNED FUNDS WILL NO T BE DECISIVE IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING IN SHARES BOTH ON DELIVERY BASIS AND NON-DE LIVERY BASIS. LOSS IN TRANSACTIONS IN FUTURE AND OPTIONS I.E. WHERE DELIV ERY WAS NOT EFFECTED HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AS SPECULATI VE BUSINESS LOSS; AND THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING MOTIVE OF EARNING PROFIT OUT OF DEALING IN SHARES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HE LD THAT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK DELIVERY OF SHARES AND HELD THE S HARES IN DE-MAT ACCOUNT IN HIS NAME BEFORE SALE OF SHARES IS NOT RE LEVANT BECAUSE UNDER SEBI GUIDELINES EVEN A TRADER IN SHARES HAS TO FOL LOW THE SAME PROCEDURE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME ON SHARES IS ALSO NOT A DECI SIVE CRITERIA. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS INTERPRETED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AS A CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH WILL GO TO SHOW THAT MOTIVE OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS WHICH INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS DOING BUSINESS IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. THEREAFTER THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS CULLED OUT PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE IN DECIDING WHEN A TRANSACTION OUGHT TO BE TREATED AS IN NATURE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OF FICER ALSO REFERRED TO THE CIRCULAR NO. 4 OF 2007 DATED 15.6.2007 OF CBDT; WHEREIN IT WAS LAID DOWN THAT NO SINGLE PRINCIPLE WOULD BE DECISIVE AND THE TOTAL EFFECT OF ALL THE PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO DETERMINE WH ETHER IN A GIVEN CASE SHARES ARE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS INVESTMENT OR ST OCK IN TRADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS BROUGHT SHORT TERM CAPITAL G AIN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE TO TAX AS BUSINESS INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEA L BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). 4. LEARNED CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME F ROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WAS TO BE ASSESSED AS CAPITAL GAIN A ND NOT AS BUSINESS SHRI RAVINDRAKUMAR AGGARWAL 4 INCOME. IN COMING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION LEARNED CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT :- (A) INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALWAYS TO HOLD SHARES AS INVESTMENT. LEARNED CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE MAIN BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS IN TRADING IN CHEMICAL S AND DYES. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SHA RES AS INVESTMENT AND NOT AS STOCK IN TRADE. (B) THAT IN A.Y. 2001-02 THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED SHORT T ERM CAPITAL LOSS; BUT DID NOT SET OFF THE SAME AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME. IN A.Y. 2003-04 THERE WAS BUSINESS INCOME AND CARRIED FORWARD SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF A.Y. 2001-02 & 2002-03 WHICH WAS AGAIN NOT ADJUSTED BY THE ASSESSEE. (C) THE ASSESSEE WAS KEEPING SEPARATE ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS ON FUT URE AND OPTIONS AND EVEN THIS LOSS WAS NOT ADJUSTED AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME; BUT WAS SHOW AS SPECULATION LOSS. (D) THE ASSESSEE USED HIS OWN FUNDS I.E. SURPLUS FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES. (E) WITH REGARD TO FREQUENCY AND VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS LEARNED CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME MAY NOT BE DEC ISIVE IN THE MATTER BECAUSE OF THE VOLATILITY OF THE SHARE MARKE T. LEARNED CIT(A) WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE VOLUME AND FRE QUENCY OF THE TRANSACTIONS WAS NEITHER SMALL NOR VERY LARGE. ON A SINGLE DAY TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT CARRIED OUT IN MORE THAN ONE SCRIPT. (F) ASSESSEE DID NOT EMPLOY ANY STAFF FOR CARRYING ON T RANSACTION OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES. (G) SUCH TRANSACTIONS WERE ACCEPTED IN THE PAST BY THE REVENUE AS GIVING RISE TO CAPITAL GAIN. THOUGH PRINCIPLES OF R ES-JUDICATA ARE NOT APPLICABLE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY WOULD APPL Y. 5. FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS LEARNED CIT(A) HELD T HAT THE GAIN WAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS PREFER RED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE STAND AS WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE LEARNE D CIT(A). LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. REKHA KHANDELWAL VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 785/MUM/ 2009 AND ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS SUPPLY AGENCY LTD. 100 ITR 706 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS SHRI RAVINDRAKUMAR AGGARWAL 5 BEEN HELD THAT EVEN SINGLE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OUTSIDE THE ASSESSEES LINE OF BUSINESS MAY CONSTITUTE AN ADVEN TURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT IT WILL DEPEND UPO N THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHERE TRANS ACTION IS ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT OR IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. FURTHER REFERENC E WAS ALSO MADE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASSOCIATED INDUSTRI AL DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. 82 ITR 586 (SC); WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT AS TO WHETHER SHARES ARE PART OF INVESTMENT OR PART OF STOCK IN TRADE IS MAT TER WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND BURDEN IS ON THE ASSE SSEE TO SHOW AS TO HOW HE MANAGED DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE INVESTMENT A ND STOCK IN TRADE. 7. THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS AS TO WHETHER THE GAI N ON TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSES SEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INC OME FROM BUSINESS AS CLAIMED BY THE REVENUE OR INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CA PITAL GAIN AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE ISSUE WOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WHEN HE PURCHASED THE SHARE S INTENDED TO TREAT THEM AS INVESTMENTS I.E. A CAPITAL ASSET OR A TRA DING ASSET I.E. AS STOCK IN TRADE OF BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES. BEFORE W E DEAL WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WE WILL BRIEFLY NARRATE T HE PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE IN DECIDING THE ABOVE ISSUE AS LAID DOWN IN SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS :- (A) WHETHER A TRANSACTION OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARE S WERE TRADING TRANSACTIONS OR WHETHER THEY WERE IN THE NA TURE OF INVESTMENTS IS MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT. CIT VS. HOLCK LARSEN 60 ITR 67 (SC). (B) IT IS POSSIBLE FOR AN ASSESSEE TO BE BOTH AN INVEST OR AS WELL AS A DEALER IN SHARES. WHETHER A PARTICULAR HOLDING IS B Y WAY OF INVESTMENT OR FORMED PART OF STOCK IN TRADE IS A MA TTER WHICH IS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE FROM HIS RECORDS AS TO WHETHER HE MAINTAINED ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN SHARES WHICH WER E HOLD BY HIM AS INVESTMENTS AND THOSE HOLD AS STOCK IN TRADE . (CIT VS. ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. 82 ITR 586 (SC). (C) TREATMENT IN THE BOOKS BY AN ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE C ONCLUSIVE. IF THE VOLUME FREQUENCY AND REGULARITY WITH WHICH TRA NSACTIONS ARE CARRIED OUT INDICATE SYSTEMATIC AND ORGANIZED A CTIVITY WITH SHRI RAVINDRAKUMAR AGGARWAL 6 PROFIT MOTIVE THEN IT WOULD BE A CASE OF BUSINESS PROFITS AND NOT CAPITAL GAIN. CIT VS. MOTILAL HIRABHAI SPG. AN D WVG. CO. LTD. 113 ITR 173 (GUJ); RAJA BAHADUR VISWSHWARA SI NGH VS. CIT 41 ITR 685 (SC). (D) PURCHASE WITHOUT AN INTENTION TO RESELL WHERE THEY ARE SOLD UNDER CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE CAPITAL GAINS. CIT VS. PKN 60 ITR 65 (SC). PURCHASE WITH AN INTENTION TO RESELL WOULD RENDER THE GAIN PROFIT ON SALE BUSINESS PROFI T DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LIKE NATURE AND QU ANTITY OF ARTICLE PURCHASED NATURE OF THE OPERATION INVOLVED . SAROJ KUMAR MAZUMDAR VS. CIT 37 ITR 242 (SC). (E) NO SINGLE FACT HAS ANY DECISIVE SIGNIFICANCE AND TH E QUESTION MUST DEPEND UPON THE COLLECTIVE EFFECT OF ALL THE R ELEVANT MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD. JANKI RAM BAHADUR RAM VS. CIT 57 ITR 21 (SC). KEEPING IN MIND THE ABOVE BROAD PRINCIPLES WE SHA LL NOW EXAMINE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE PLEA PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE DESERVES T O BE ACCEPTED. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT REASONS GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A) FO R COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT INCOME IN QUESTION IS CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT BUSINESS INCOME IN OUR VIEW ARE ACCEPTABLE. IN OUR VIEW TH ERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT INCOME IN Q UESTION IS BUSINESS INCOME. IN COMING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES MAIN OCCUPATION IS TRADING IN DYES AND C HEMICALS FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SHARES AS INV ESTMENT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT USED BORROWE D FUNDS TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN SHARES. THE ASSESSEE EARNED SUBSTANTI AL DIVIDEND INCOME. PERIOD OF HOLDING IS ABOUT SIX MONTHS. COMPOSITION OF INCOME OF THE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE FORM OF CHA RT AND IT SHOWS THE FOLLOWING POSITION :- AY. T.O.(SALES) CHEMICAL BUSINESS GROSS PROFIT CHEMICAL BUSINESS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS/LOSS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SPECULATIO N PROFIT 2007-08 13 630 583 681 247 1 296 460 559 998 - SHRI RAVINDRAKUMAR AGGARWAL 7 2006-07 16 848 712 1 695 193 6 229 243 1 661 913 (195 451) 2005-06 20 209 919 1 893 705 5 650 910 - (682 536) 2004-05 16 441 966 1 209 793 1 874 228 108 091 675 105 2003-04 14 687 373 1 213 053 (589 538) - - 2002-03 10 184 478 876 214 66 274 - - ABOVE CHART CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRADING CHEMICALS. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN LIST OF INVEST MENT IN SHARES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 1.4.2004 AND 31.3.2005. WE FIND THAT SOME OF THE SHARES CONTINUED TO BE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A P ERIOD OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR. DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2004 TO 31.3.2005 WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE US; AND IT SHOW S THAT IN MANY TRANSACTIONS WHERE VOLUME AND VALUE ARE SIGNIFICAN T THE HOLDING PERIOD HAS BEEN MORE THAN TWO MONTHS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT ON CUMULATIVE CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEARNED CIT (A)S CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME IN QUESTION IS CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT BUSI NESS INCOME IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT AND CALLS FOR NO INTERFERENCE. AS FAR AS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. REKHA KHANDELWAL (SUPR A) IS CONCERNED WE FIND THAT THE FACTS IN THE AFORESAID CASE WERE TOTA LLY DIFFERENT. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID DECISION FOUND THAT THE P LEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS SELLING SHARES THE MOVEMENT INCREASE I N THE VALUE OF SHARES JUSTIFIED RETURN EQUIVALENT TO INTEREST ON FD WAS I NCORRECT. MOREOVER THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF T RADING IN SHARES IN THE PAST AND THIS WAS A FACTOR WHICH HEAVILY WEIGHE D WITH THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO BORROWED MONEY FOR MAKING INV ESTMENT. WE THUS FIND THAT THE SAID DECISION IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON F ACTS. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SU TLEJ COTTON MILLS SUPPLY AGENCY LTD. (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN EMPHASIZED IN THAT DECISION THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE HAVE TO BE LOOKED INTO. IN THE PRESENT CASE CONDUCT AND CIRC UMSTANCES ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCOME IS CAPITAL GAIN. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SHARES A S INVESTMENT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; AND THEREFORE THE RATIO LAID DOW N IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. MAY NOT HAVE ANY RELEVANCE. SHRI RAVINDRAKUMAR AGGARWAL 8 9. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE UPHELD AND THE SAME I S HEREBY UPHELD. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH DAY OF APRIL 2010. SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH APRIL 2010 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR CONCERNED MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI PS