M/S. EARTHSTONE HOLDING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the transaction of sale of shares constituted an investment and not a business activity. The Assessing Officer's presumption of business intention was deemed without basis. Similarly, the surplus from mutual fund redemption was to be assessed as short-term capital gain.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a long-term capital loss on the sale of shares, but the Assessing Officer treated it as business income. The assessee argued it was a single investment transaction held for 16 months, not an attempt to control the company. The Tribunal considered the totality of facts, including the small percentage of shares acquired and the classification of shares as investment in the balance sheet.
What were the issues?
Whether the sale of shares and mutual funds constituted business income or capital gains. The primary issue was determining the assessee's dominant intention at the time of acquiring the shares and mutual funds.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARGSHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG
PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP :- PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi dated 23rd September, 2013.
The first ground of assessee’s appeal reads as under:-
“That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in affirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disregarding the long term capital loss of Rs.1,37,78,697/- arising on sale of shares returned by the appellant, holding that the transaction of sale of shares gave rise to business income since the dominant intention of the appellant was to earn income from sale of shares.”
2 ITA-6607/Del/2013
At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the assessee purchased 3,84,588 shares of M/s Acme Telepower Ltd. on 12th November, 2007 for a sum of `26,45,96,544/-. All the shares were sold on 6th March, 2009 for a sum of `26,56,96,544/-. Thus, there was a single transaction of purchase and sale of shares. The shares were sold after 16 months from its acquisition and after considering the indexed cost of acquisition, the assessee claimed long term capital loss of `1,37,78,697/-. The Assessing Officer treated the purchase and sale of the shares as business on the ground that the assessee has intention to take the control of M/s Acme Telepower Ltd. Learned counsel for the assessee clarified that the assessee made the investment in shares because, at the relevant time, M/s Acme Telepower Ltd. was coming up with an IPO. The assessee expected good appreciation in the market value of the shares and, therefore, made investment therein. When the company cancelled its plan of IPO, the assessee realized its investment. That assessee was never in a position to acquire the controlling interest in the said company. He pointed out that the acquisition of the shares by the assessee was only 0.25% of the total shares of M/s Acme Telepower Ltd. Thus, there is no question of any taking over the control and management of M/s Acme Telepower Ltd. He further stated that the assessee invested own funds and no borrowed money was utilized for acquisition of M/s Acme Telepower Ltd. He also pointed out that in its balance sheet ended on 31st March, 2008, the shares were shown as investment. That the presumption of the Assessing Officer that the assessee made the investment in the shares with an intention of earning profit is without any basis.
Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below and pointed out that on the investment of more than `26 crores, the assessee had earned the dividend income of 3 ITA-6607/Del/2013 `9,45,821/- only. Thus, the investment in shares was certainly not for the purpose of earning the dividend income but for earning the profit from the sale of shares.
We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and have perused the material placed before us. After considering the facts of the case, we do not find any justification for the finding of the lower authorities that the shares were acquired with the intention of business in such shares. We find that there was a single transaction of purchase and sale of shares. The purchase was made with own funds. The shares were held for a period of 16 months and then sold. After sale of shares, there is no acquisition of shares of this company or any other company. Neither in the preceding assessment year nor in this year, there is purchase and sale of shares of any other company. In the balance sheet of 31st March, 2008, shares have been shown as investment. Totality of these facts clearly lead to the conclusion that it is a case of investment in shares which was realized later on. The presumption of the Assessing Officer that the shares of M/s Acme Telepower Ltd. were purchased to acquire the management and control of the said company is without any basis. The assessee has pointed out that the shares acquired by the assessee were less than 1% of the total shares of M/s Acme Telepower Ltd. The intention of the assessee at the time of acquisition of shares is to be gathered from the totality of all the facts and, after considering the totality of all the facts, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee made the investment in the shares. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer that the assessee purchased the shares with the intention of business is without any justification and is only on the basis of presumption and suspicion. In view of the above, we direct the Assessing Officer to accept the long term capital loss on the sale of shares of M/s Acme Telepower Ltd.
4 ITA-6607/Del/2013
Ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal reads as under:-
“That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in affirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disregarding the short term capital gains of Rs.7,860/- arising on sale of mutual funds returned by the appellant, holding that the transaction of sale of mutual funds gave rise to business income since the dominant intention of the appellant was to earn income from sale of mutual funds.”
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have perused the material placed before us. The facts relating to this ground are that the assessee made investment in mutual funds which was realized subsequently. From the details of the acquisition of mutual funds, we find that there were total three transactions of acquisition of units of mutual funds and only three transactions of their redemption. There is no frequency of the acquisition and redemption of the investment in mutual funds. Investment is made from own funds. Therefore, in our opinion, the surplus from the redemption of the units of mutual funds should be assessed as short term capital gain (since the redemption is within one year from the investment in mutual funds) rather than business income. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 19.09.2016.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026