(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) We have heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt learned Senior Standing counsel assisted by Mrs. Mauma M. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
ADMIT.
We formulate the following substantial questions of law which arises in this appeal :-
"[I] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the CIT(A)'s order directing the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as an investor and to compute the income from the transactions of sale and purchase of shares under the head, 'Capital Gain' ?
[II] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in relying upon the decision in the case of CIT v. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582 (Bom) while granting relief to the assessee and based thereupon directing that the assessee be treated as an investor, ignoring that the facts in the case relied upon were distinguishable from the facts in the case of the assessee, thereby ignoring the settled proposition laid down in this regard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. 198 ITR 297 (SC) ?
[III] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the CIT(A)'s order directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income from the transactions of sale and purchase of shares made through PMS, under the head, 'Capital gain' ?"
Issue notice to the other side. Paper book be filed within 3 months. Connect with Tax Appeal No.1071 of 2011.
[V.
M. SAHAI, J.] [N.
V. ANJARIA, J.] Savariya Top