JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad "C" Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the learned tribunal") in IT(SS)A No. 530/Ahd/2011 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 by which the learned tribunal has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,31,40,000/-, which was made by the Assessing Officer treating the same as business income against the claim of the assessee as short term capital gain, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed questions of law; (A) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in confirming the decision of the CIT(A) in holding the share transaction as investments despite the fact that motive of transactions admittedly was earning the profit (maximization of wealth in words of assessee) coupled with huge number of transactions with very less holding period, many were less than a month, transaction to stock ration was very high, interest bearing fund have been used, and these shares have been used as margin for trading in derivative transaction?" (B) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to treat the sum of Rs. 1,31,40,000/- as STCG and not business income?" 2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned tribunal that the respondent - assessee is the investor and the investment in shares were as investment and not as stock-in-trade. The Assessing Officer however treated the income from share transactions as business income, and therefore, made the addition into the total income of the assessee treating it as business income and not as short term capital gain claimed by the respondent - assessee. The Assessing Officer however treated the income from share transactions as business income, and therefore, made the addition into the total income of the assessee treating it as business income and not as short term capital gain claimed by the respondent - assessee. Considering the material on record, more particularly, the relevant clause in the partnership agreement under which the firm was barred from entering into any trading activity in the shares/mutual funds, both the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned tribunal have deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer and has treated the income from the share transactions as short term capital gain. 3. At this stage, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the learned tribunal has heavily relied upon its earlier decision in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Tejas Securities in IT(SS)A No. 531 and 532/Ahd/2011. It is not in dispute that the decision of the learned tribunal in the case of M/s. Tejas Securities has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order in Tax Appeal No. 35/2017 with Tax Appeal No. 34/2017. 4. In view of the above, it cannot be said the learned tribunal has committed any error in deleting the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,31,40,000/- treating the said income as short term capital gain and not treating the same as business income. No substantial questions of law arise as proposed. Under the circumstances, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.