JUDGMENT : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following questions for our consideration: “(A).Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs.9,23,637/- out of total disallowance of Rs.11,01,769/- u/s. 14A of the Act? (B). Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in treating the profit on sale of shares of RS.78,21,689/- and Rs.6,61,000/-as long term capital gain instead of business income?” 2. The first issue pertains to restriction of disallowance made by the Tribunal under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' for short). In this respect, we notice that the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the general expenses and deleted the disallowance in relation to the expenses of the specific nature which were not related to earning exempt income. We also notice that in the earlier years concerning the same assessee, the Tribunal had adopted the same principle and the Revenue had not carried the issue further. 3. The second issue arises out of the assessee's sale of shares. Assessing Officer treated as a business income, as against, assessee's contention that such sale of shares give rise to long term/short term capital gain. From the record, we gather that the assessee had shown such shares as investment in the books of accounts, had taken delivery of the shares and there were few transactions during the entire year. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal committed no error in its view. Counsel for the Revenue further desired to distinguish the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gopal Purohit reported in 336 ITR 287, on which the Tribunal has placed reliance. Since we have confirmed the view of the Tribunal on different grounds, this question is kept open. 4. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed.