1. CIT v. Minor Bababhai Alias Lavkumar Kantilal

128 ITR 1High Court1981#14812 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing 1. CIT v. Minor Bababhai Alias Lavkumar Kantilal

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Morarjee Realities Ltd (Now M/S. Peninsula Land Ltd), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2343/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2020AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Vijya Mehta – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Jangpangi-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 2(14)

…eason it was rendered in the context of a different Act viz.- the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. Thus, it can have no application while dealing with the Act. It is also his submission that the reliance upon decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s. Minor Bababhai 128 ITR 1 is inappropriate, as in that case, the Revenue has accepted that the amount due from the un-secured creditor were in the nature of capital assets. Thus, there was no dispute on the issue of 'capital asset' as in this case. Therefore, this appeal deserves admission. 5. We find that Section 2(14) of the Act has defined the word ‘capital asset’ very w…

Shri Ashish Tandon, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1954/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45Section 54FSection 55

…ssee was that the amount received by the assessee from Trend Micro India Pvt Ltd was a capital gain in his hands, but as it had no cost of acquisition and in the light of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs B C Srinivas Shetty [(1981) 128 ITR 1 (SC)], this capital gain was not taxable in nature. ITA No.: 1954/Ahd/ 2017 Assessment year: 2013-14 Page 3 of 27 The Assessing Officer took note of the agreement that the assessee entered into with Indusface India and analysed the same in considerable detail. He noted that, as per the said agreement, the assessee has “coined the interesting conce…

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 847/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…and signifies every possible interest which a person can hold or enjoy except those specifically excluded”. c) Reliance has been made on the following case laws to state that the loan constitute “capital asset” 1. CIT v Minor Bababhai Alias Lavkumar Kantilal 128 ITR 1 (Guj) 2. CIT v East India Charitable Trust 207 ITR 152 (Cal) 3. Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation v CIT 132 ITR 884 (M.P.) d) Since the loan (capital asset) has been transferred/assigned to M/s. Western Alliance Power Ltd. resulting in a loss of `17,75,67,418/-. Therefore the loss on assignment of loan is allowable as Short Term Capital Loss as…

Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1425/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…and signifies every possible interest which a person can hold or enjoy except those specifically excluded”. c) Reliance has been made on the following case laws to state that the loan constitute “capital asset” 1. CIT v Minor Bababhai Alias Lavkumar Kantilal 128 ITR 1 (Guj) 2. CIT v East India Charitable Trust 207 ITR 152 (Cal) 3. Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation v CIT 132 ITR 884 (M.P.) d) Since the loan (capital asset) has been transferred/assigned to M/s. Western Alliance Power Ltd. resulting in a loss of `17,75,67,418/-. Therefore the loss on assignment of loan is allowable as Short Term Capital Loss as…

Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme Gmbh (Formerly Aisemens Nixdorf Informaitonssysteme Ag, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3833/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2002-03
Section 2(14)Section 2(47)

…ed by the exclusion clauses set out in Section 2(14), it is required to be treated as a ‘capital asset’. Learned counsel’s reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s judgment, in the case of CIT Vs Minor Bababhai alias Lavkumar Kanti Lal [(1981) 128 ITR 1 (Guj)], we find that the loss suffered by the assessee, on account of settlement of his dues as unsecured creditor @ 45% of the amount, was allowed as a short term capital loss. Unless the amount due is treated as a capital asset, there was obviously no question of the short term capital loss. As a matter of fact, it was not even the case of the re…

Karnataka State Beverages Corportion Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/12872/2013HC Karnataka18 Feb 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

…the same: 24 a) Sassoon J. David and Company, Private Limited vs. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC). b) Hero Cycles (Private) Limited vs. CIT, 128 ITR 1 (SC). c) Bombay Steam Navigation Company, (1953) Private Limited vs. CIT Bombay, (1965) 56 ITR 52 (SC). Insofar as the opinion expressed by the Assessing Officer that the amendments made to the Karnataka Excise Act as being illegal, unreasonable, irrational and unscientific, is pointed out as being outside the scope of his jurisdiction…