Principal Commissioner Ofincome-Tax-4 v. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue To Challenge The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.323 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner ofIncome-Tax-4 .... Appellant versus Smt. Vimla S. Jajoo... Respondent ….... Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant.Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.Madhur Agrawal i/b. Mint & Confreres, Advocate for Respondent.Mr.Madhur Agrawal i/b. Mint & Confreres, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI &SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.DATE: 09[th] APRIL, 2019. P.C. : 1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following questionsare presented for our consideration; “(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred indeleting the disallowance made by the A.O. of 2 / 3 06-ITXA-323-17.odtSTCG amounting to Rs.3,01,14,251/- as BusinessIncome? (b)“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT furthererred in considering the deposits written off ofRs.7,50,000/- as Business Loss?”the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT furthererred in considering the deposits written off ofRs.7,50,000/- as Business Loss?” 2. Insofar as question (a) is concerned, We havediscussed the issue of income from sale of shares to be treated as capital gain for business income in assessee’s own caseNo.264/17 and 1460/17. By an order passed on 09/04/2019,we have dismissed the Revenue's Appeal on identical issue.Without recording separate reasons, therefore, this question isnot entertained. 3. Insofar as question (b) is concerned, the same pertainsto sum of Rs.7.50 lakhs, which the assessee claimed as abusiness loss. The assessee at the relevant time was a StockBroker registered with Calcutta Stock Exchange. The assesseehad deposited a sum of Rs.10.50 lakhs with the Stock Exchange 3 / 3 06-ITXA-323-17.odt as a part of the requirement. A part of this amount wasforfeited/utilized by the Stock Exchange towards settlementguarantee fund and base minimum capital towards paymentcrisis. The assessee argued that this deposit was made in courseof business and the loss is therefore incidental to the business.The argument was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, butwas accepted by the CIT Appeals and the Tribunal. We see noerror in the view of the authorities. 4. No question of law arises. The Income Tax Appeal isdismissed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)