What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the income as capital gains, finding no material to demonstrate that the facts for the current assessment year were different from the previously decided case.

The assessee offered income from share transactions as capital gains, but the AO treated it as business income. The CIT(A) followed a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier year, holding the facts to be identical.

What were the issues?

Whether the income from share transactions should be treated as capital gains or business income, and if a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case is binding.

ACIT vs Sagar Construction | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI C.N. PRASAD

For Appellant: Shri Akhilendra Yadav, DR

Hearing: 09.11.2016Pronounced: 18.11.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 09.11.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

This appeal filed by the Revenue on 16.4.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-35, Mumbai dated 7.1.2014 for the assessment 2009-2010. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in holding the income of the assessee from share transaction as profit from capital gain and not as business income.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) is not justified in following the decision of the Hon‟ble ITAT in the assessee‟s own case for earlier years where the facts and circumstances are different from the facts for the AY 2009-2010.”

2. The only issue raised in this appeal relates to the CIT (A)‟s decision in following the decision of the ITAT in the assessee‟s own case the for the earlier assessment years in granting relief to the assessee in respect of income earned on share transactions. Brief facts in this regard are that the assessee earned income out of the trading in share transactions and the same was offered as capital gains. Rejecting the same, AO treated the said income as „business income‟. In the process, he relied on the contents of the orders of the Tribunal for the earlier

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments