Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member. - (1.) THIS appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds which are as under : "1(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer for loss of Rs. 11,40,72,556 on sale of 22,00,000 shares of NOCIL by the appellant treating the impugned transaction as sham. (b) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the loss incurred by the appellant on sale of shares of NOCIL was genuine and is supported by sufficient materials and evidences on record. (c) In reaching to the conclusion and confirming such addition, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) omitted to consider relevant factors, considerations, principles and evidences while he was overwhelmed, influenced and prejudiced by irrelevant considerations and factors.
(2.) (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer for loss of Rs. 5,40,00,000 on sale of 60,00,000 shares of Mafatlal Burlington Industries Limited treating the impugned transaction as sham. (b) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the loss incurred by the appellant on sale of shares of Mafatlal Burlington Industries Ltd. was genuine and is supported by sufficient materials and evidences on record. (c) In reaching to the conclusion and confirming such addition, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) omitted to consider relevant factors, considerations, principles and evidences while he was overwhelmed, influenced and prejudiced by irrelevant considerations and factors. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the view of the assessing officer that the amount worth Rs. 1,99,50,554 received from British Asia Pacific Holding (P.) Ltd. on transfer of shares of Gujarat Gas Company Limited was assessable under the head 'Income from other sources' as against correct head of 'Capital gains' shown by the appellant. (b) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the money received by the appellant was the part and parcel of full value of- the consideration received on sale of shares. (c) Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought have treatedsuch receipt as business income of the appellant.
(3.) (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,01,611 made by the assessing officer by way of disallowing interest under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the interest was paid on the amount borrowed for the purposes of the business of the appellant.;