Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Sandeep Mani (Huf) vs Dcit, Spl. Range 7 on 3 December, 2002

Sandeep Paul (Huf), New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 20 April, 2017

3. Ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and referred to computation of income, return of income and assessment orders u/s 143(3) for A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2009-10 in which on these identical facts, the AO accepted the capital gains declared Page 3 of 6 by the assessee. The orders dated 28.11.2008 and 06.06.2011 are filed in the Paper Book. He has referred to Paper Book page 36 which is statement of purchase, sale after incorporate holding as on 31.03.2007 which indicated that none of the scrips enumerated by the AO have been sold without delivery. In the first column, it is mentioned that the scrips were held as on 31.03.2007 i.e. preceding assessment year i.e 2007-08 which is opening stock and out of the same, sales have been made in assessment year under appeal. Paper Book page 38 is further details of scrips holding to show sales scrips, purchases in the year under appeal which have been sold in the next year. Ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that the findings of the AO are wholly incorrect that the assessee is indulged in day trading and indulged in transactions without delivery. He has submitted that the assessee made investment in shares only, therefore, it was rightly declared as capital gains. He has submitted on the principle of consistency, the authorities below should not have taken a different view on the identical facts and relied upon the order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Sandip Y. Shah (HUF) vs DCIT in ITA No.1249/12 dated 09.09.2015 in which it was held that "on rule of consistency, the authorities below should not have taken a different way." The findings in para 10 of the order are reproduced hereunder:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1