Itta/516/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Tanvi Financial Services Pvt Ltd

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.516 of 2014 DATED:5.8.2014 Between:Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Hyderabad.And … Appellant M/s. Tanvi Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.,Secunderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.516 of 2014 Judgment :(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted againstthe judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 15.3.2013 inrelation to the assessment year 2008-09 on the followingsuggested questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in itsinterpretation that the respondent assessee is not tradingin shares despite the fact that the income fromtransactions in shares being more than the interestincome from Non-Banking Financial Company activitiesand the respondent assessee had clear intention to tradein shares ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law, inholding that the respondent assessee is an investor whenthe respondent assessee is indulging in trading in shares? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law, indetermining the nature of the transactions based uponmere book entries of the respondent assessee ? It appears from the aforesaid questions and also after hearing Mr. S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for theappellant that the crux of the questions is whether the nature of thebusiness and transaction of the assessee is an investment ortrading activity in relation to the shares. The learned Tribunal, on fact and after examining the booksof accounts, found that there is no indication of trading activitywith regard to the shares. The shares were treated to be acquiredfor the purpose of investment only. Being so, the learned Tribunalor for that matter, we cannot come to any other legal conclusionexcept than what has been done. We, therefore, do not find any element of law to admit theappeal as the appreciation of fact was done in aid and support withthe questions suggested. Hence, we dismiss the appeal. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall alsostand closed. No costs. __________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 5[th] August, 2014 pnb