Brief about the case
The assessee was a medical practitioner with professional income and income from capital gains as returned income. The A.O. contended the income from capital gains to be the income from business or profession as he noticed that the professional receipts turned to be equivalent to merely 1/37th of the gains from share transactions.
The assessee appealed to CIT(A) which decided in favour of the assessee stating that he had consistently been declaring income in past and future years under the head LTCG/ STCG and also consistently reflecting the impugned investments in the financial statements under the head ‘Investments’ and valuing the same at ‘cost price’ unlike on ‘cost price or market price whichever is less’ as is done by a trader .Further, while earning LTCG more than 74% of the shares were held for more than 18 months and in 11% cases shares were held for more than 36 months. Moreover 69% of the LTCG was earned on account of bonus and split shares being received against original investments.
The matter was furthermore taken to the ITAT which ordered the case for reconsideration by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the assumption that additional evidence had been filed, or was sought to be led by the assessee.
The question sought to be urged before the Delhi High Court is whether in the circumstances of the case the nature of the remand ought to have been limited, given that the CIT(Appeals) considered all materials on record and held that the sum of Rs.1,97,17,460/-, reported during assessment year 2007-08, constituted capital gains. The High court pronounced that the AO shall proceed to deal with and decide as to which shares are to be treated as short term capital gain. The remand directed by the ITAT is limited to enquiry on this aspect
Facts of the case:
