The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv, Nagpur v. Sanjay Ishwarlal Ranka

1 ITA8.13+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.8 OF 2013 (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, NAGPUR..VS..SANJAY ISHWARLAL RANKA.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's ordersappearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Anand Parchure. Advocate for Petitioner. Mr L.S.Dewani, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK ANDA.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATED:OCTOBER 24, 2013. Heard. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Tribunal has, on a consideration of the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gopal Purohit, reported in (2010) 228 CTR (Bom)582, recorded a finding that the assessee was not holding the shares or units as stock-in-trade and was holding the same as an investment. The facts involved in the case in hand are similar to the facts involved in the judgment reported in (2010) 228 CTR (Bom) 582 (supra) and it cannot therefore, be said that the Tribunal was not justified in recording the aforesaid finding of fact. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE