ORDER Akil Kureshi, J. - The Revenue is in appeal against the Judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). Following questions of law were argued before us: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the transaction in the shares of Adani Enterprise were in the nature of short term capital gains; ignoring the fact that the volume, frequency and motive of the Company clearly indicated that these transactions were for the purpose of profit and therefore, business income? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on account of foreign traveling; failing to note that neither before the AO nor before the Tribunal was the company in a position to give evidence of the nexus between this expenditure and the present or future business of the Company?" 2. The dispute between the Assessee and the Department is whether the sale of shares of one Adani Enterprises by the Assessee, would give rise to business income or short term capital gain. The Assessing Officer gave detailed reasons to come to the conclusion that said sale of shares was in the nature of Assessee''s business venture. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer, upon which, the issue reached the Tribunal at the hands of the Assessee. The Tribunal by the impugned Judgment allowed the Assessee''s appeal, making following observations:- "We heard the parties and perused the record. The first issue relates to the assessment of Capital Gains as Business income. In the year relevant to the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee initially declared STCG of Rs. 383.52 lakhs. However, later it reduced the STCG claim to R.371.45 lakhs and declared balance amount of Rs. 12.07 lakhs as Business income. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has earned the entire amount of STCG in dealing with a single scrip viz. M/s. Adani Enterprises Limited. The Assessee has furnished the details of workings of STCG at page 17 of the paper book. A perusal of the same would show that the assessee has held the shares of M/s. Adani Enterprises Limited for an average period of 60 days. M/s. Adani Enterprises Limited. The Assessee has furnished the details of workings of STCG at page 17 of the paper book. A perusal of the same would show that the assessee has held the shares of M/s. Adani Enterprises Limited for an average period of 60 days. The Assessee has purchased shares initially in several instalments and sold them subsequently in instalments, meaning thereby there are no successive repetition of purchase and sale of shares. There is an exception only to the extent of Rs. 1.13 lakhs against the total purchases of Rs. 588.01 lakhs. A perusal of Balance Sheet placed at page 5 of the paper book also shows that the assessee had used own funds and also interest free funds borrowed from the directors only for making investments, meaning thereby, no interest bearing funds have been borrowed for the purpose. The assessee has taken delivery of shares. In the books, it has treated the same as its investment. We notice that the AO has considered all the shares together to take the view that the assessee has indulged in trading in shares. However, the fact remains that the assessee itself has offered gains arising on shares held as trading stock as its business income. The assessee has claimed the gains arising on sale of Adani Enterprises Limited only as Short Term Capital Gain with the claim that it has held the same as its investment. It is now well settled proposition that a person is entitled to maintain two separate portfolios, one for its investment and another one for its trading assets. For this proposition, one may gainfully refer to the Circular No.4/2007 dated 15-06-2007 issued by the CBDT and also the decision rendered by Hon''ble High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (2010) (228 CTR 582). In the instant case, the assessing officer has not disproved the claim of the assessee that it has maintained two different portfolios as discussed above. Even though the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the question whether transactions were in the nature of trade or otherwise is largely dependent upon the facts of each case, yet we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) has not properly appreciated the facts prevailing in the instant case. Even though the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the question whether transactions were in the nature of trade or otherwise is largely dependent upon the facts of each case, yet we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) has not properly appreciated the facts prevailing in the instant case. In our view, the discussions made by us in the preceding paragraphs clearly show that the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase of shares of M/s. Adani Enterprises Limited was to hold it as its investments. We notice that the assessing officer has not brought any material on record to show the contrary, which means that the AO has arrived at the adverse conclusion only on surmises. Accordingly, we are of the view that the gains arising on its sale should be assessed as Short term capital gains only. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the assessing officer to assess the gains arising on sale of shares of M/s. Adani Enterprises Limited under the head "Income from Capital gains." From the material on record, and with the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, we notice that in the earlier year also, Assessee had claimed capital gain out of its sale of shares. Same was accepted by the Assessing Officer. 3. Further, in the present case, the Tribunal noted that the dispute pertains only to one scrip namely the shares of M/s. Adam Enterprise Ltd., Assessee had purchased the shares in instalments and after holding them for sometime, sold them also in instalments. Thus, there were no instances of repetitive purchase and sale of shares. From the balance sheet, it could be gathered that the Assessee had used its own funds or interest free funds, borrowed from the Directors of the Company in order to purchase the shares. The Assessee had taken physical delivery of the shares and in the books of account, treated the same as an investment. 4. Inter alia, on said grounds, Tribunal had ruled in favour of the Assessee. Whether the purchase and sale of shares is in the nature of investment or business venture, would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. There are judicially laid down guidelines and parameters to judge whether in a case, the sale of shares would give rise to business income or capital gain. Whether the purchase and sale of shares is in the nature of investment or business venture, would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. There are judicially laid down guidelines and parameters to judge whether in a case, the sale of shares would give rise to business income or capital gain. Nevertheless, essentially such question is a mixed question of law and facts. In the present case, the Tribunal has applied the correct parameters to the admitted the facts, emerging from the record. We do not find any error in such consideration. No question, therefore, arises for our consideration. 5. The second question pertains to disallowance of Foreign Travel expenses, claimed by the Assessee, as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer objected to the claim on the ground that, such expenditure was incurred for setting up a new business and the same was, therefore, a capital expenditure. The Tribunal, however, decided the issue in favour of the Assessee, making following observations:- "The next issue contested in AY 2007-08 relates to the disallowance of foreign travel expenses. We have noticed earlier that the tax authorities have taken the view that the foreign travel expenses have been incurred on exploring new business opportunities and hence it is capital in nature and/or in the nature of preoperative expenses. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee is engage in the business of providing consultancy services in private placement of shares with Foreign Institutional Investors, financial institutes and is also providing advice on strategic investments and insurance sector. Besides the above, it also helps in arranging finance. Now the submission of the assessee is that it has incurred foreign travel expenses to expand its operations in various other places. Mere expansion of existing business activities, under no circumstance, would fall under the category of "New business venture". It is not the case of the AO that the assessee has incurred the foreign travel expenses in connection with any activity, which is altogether new one and unconnected with the existing business activities. From the explanation furnished by the assessee, we notice that the traveling expenses have been incurred to increase the customer base in different countries and also to identify new avenues in the existing business of providing financial consultancy services. It is a settled proposition that the expenditure incurred for expansion of the existing business activities is revenue in nature. From the explanation furnished by the assessee, we notice that the traveling expenses have been incurred to increase the customer base in different countries and also to identify new avenues in the existing business of providing financial consultancy services. It is a settled proposition that the expenditure incurred for expansion of the existing business activities is revenue in nature. It is also well settled that the expenditure need not produce revenue immediately, since it is usual that these expenditure may bear fruits in future. The assessee has also submitted that these expenses have not been incurred by the directors, but the representatives of the assessee company who hold high educational qualification, meaning thereby the element of personal expenditure is also ruled out. Hence, we are of the view that the tax authorities are not right in law in holding that the traveling expenses are capital/preoperative in nature. Accordingly, we set set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow the deduction towards foreign travel expenses." From the record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Foreign Travel expenditure was incurred to increase the Assessee''s customer base in different countries and also to open new avenues in the existing business of providing financial consultancy service. In nutshell, therefore, the Tribunal from the facts on record, held that the expenditure was for expansion of extending business and not for setting up a new business. No question of law arises in this respect also. 6. Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed.