What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee has consistently treated share transactions as investments and the income/loss as capital gains/losses. The Revenue could not provide any distinguishing facts for the year under consideration.

The assessee claimed long-term capital gain and short-term capital loss on share transactions. The lower authorities treated these as business income/loss. The assessee argued that shares were consistently treated as investments and gains/losses as capital gains/losses in preceding and subsequent years.

What were the issues?

Whether long-term capital gains and short-term capital losses on share transactions should be treated as business income/loss or capital gains/loss.

Daneshbhai Madhusudan Parikh HUF… vs DCIT | ITAT Ahmedabad 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, AR

Hearing: 20/04/2026Pronounced: 13/05/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.2104/Ahd/2025 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Daneshbhai Madhusudan DCIT, Parikh-HUF, बनाम/ Anand Circle, v/s. 77, Navdeep Society, College Anand Road, Nadiad-387001 �थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AADHD6537J (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (�� यथ�/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 13/05/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 08/09/2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016- 2017.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The order passed by lower authorities is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in treating long term capital gain of Rs. 2,01,58,295/- and short term capital loss of Rs.78,17,158/- as business income.

ITA No.2104/Ahd/2025 Daneshbhai Madhusudan Parikh-HUF vs. DCIT Asst.Year 2016-17 2 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 12341137/- by treating capital gain as business income. 4. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C are unjustified.” 3. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the Long Term Capital Gain and Short Term Capital Loss claimed by the assessee on sale/purchase transaction shares is to be treated as business income/loss or capital gain/loss.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has been continuously making investment in shares for the last so many years and has consistently shown the shares purchased by the assessee as investment and any profit/loss earned by the assesse on such share transaction has been consistently taxed as capital gains /loss and not as business income/loss. The assessee has relied upon page 11 of the Paper Book to show that the share purchase transactions of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 have been treated as investment and the income/loss earned thereon taken as capital gain/loss. This shows not only in the preceding years but also in the subsequent years to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has been treated as an investor and income/loss incurred on sale/purchase of shares has been consistently taxed by the Department under the head capital gains.

The Ld. DR could bring out any distinguishing fact for the year under consideration. Therefore, the capital gains/loss incurred by the assessee for the year under consideration are directed to be treated

ITA No.2104/Ahd/2025 Daneshbhai Madhusudan Parikh-HUF vs. DCIT Asst.Year 2016-17 3 under the head capital gains and not taxed business income/loss. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member

अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 13/05/2025 TRUE COPY Tanmay, Sr. P.S. आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad

Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with the file)) : 20.04 2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the : 21.04.2026 Dictating Member. 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 27.04.2026 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating : Member for pronouncement. 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the : 13.05.2026 Sr.P.S./P.S. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 13.05.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar : for signature on the order. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order :

DANESHBHAI MADHUSUDAN PARIKH HUF,NADIAD vs. DCIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments