CIT vs. VIMPY INVESTMENT LEASING & FINANCE CO LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 1268/2011 . . . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Deepak Chopra, Adv. . . . versus . . . VIMPY INVESTMENT LEASING and FINANCE . CO LTD ..... Respondent . Through Mr. Praveen Agrawal, Ms. Sarika Singh and Mr. Vikram, Advs. . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 07.12.2011 . . . Caveat No.1098/2011 . Respondent is present on caveat, accordingly the caveat is taken on record. Respondent will be heard at the time of consideration of the stay application, if any. The caveat is accordingly disposed of. . . . ITA 1268/2011 . 1. Ld. counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to para 7 of the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 29th April, 2011. It is submitted that the reasoning given in para 7 is devoid of relevant details and does not take into consideration the arguments and contentions of the appellant. It is submitted that the impugned order is cryptic. . 2. Ld. counsel for the respondent-assessee fairly states that the matter can be remanded to the tribunal for a fresh decision. He however, clarifies that concession on his part should not be construed that the . respondent-assessee has accepted or admitted that income from sales of shares of Shree Pre-coated Steels Ltd. is income from business and not income from short term capital gains. . 3. The concession made by the ld. counsel for the respondent is taken on record. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned order dated 29th April, 2011 are accordingly set aside with direction to the tribunal to decide the appeal afresh. The tribunal will not be influenced by their earlier decision. It is also clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. . The appeal is disposed of. No costs. . . . SANJIV KHANNA,J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . DECEMBER 07, 2011 . vld . . . . . $ 37 .