- (1.) Heard Sri Alok Mathur, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Namit Srivastava, counsel for respondent.
(2.) All these appeals under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 1961") have arisen from common judgment and order dated 07.02.2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A' Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") deciding three appeals relating to different Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as "A.Y."), details whereof are given as under:- JUDGEMENT_327_LAWS(ALL)3_2017_1.html JUDGEMENT_327_LAWS(ALL)3_2017_1.html
(3.) There are two substantial questions of law raised in Income Tax Appeal no. 98 of 2005 and in remaining two appeals there is single substantial question of law which is identical as question no. 1 in Income Tax Appeal no. 100 of 2005. Therefore, we are reproducing herein two substantial questions of law raised in Income Tax Appeal no. 100 of 2005:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in law in directing that the income arising on the sale of shares of M/s Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. was to be computed under the head 'capital gains' even though the respondent indulged in frequent purchase and sale of shares with a view to earn profits through trading transactions and the conduct of the respondent showed that it was carrying on business in shares, and as such the income arising from such transaction was liable to be assessed as the business income of the respondent. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,79,500/- made on account of disallowance of interest on borrowed funds without appreciating the fact that had the respondent not advanced Rs. 1,25,30,000/- to various parties free of interest, the need of the respondent for borrowings on which interest was paid at the rate 15% per annum would have been less to the same extent.";