1) CIT vs. Girish Mohan Ganeriwale 260 ITR 417(P & H) 2) CIT v. Ramaamirtham

228 ITR 582High Court#19958 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 356,934 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing 1) CIT vs. Girish Mohan Ganeriwale 260 ITR 417(P & H) 2) CIT v. Ramaamirtham

Shri Krishna Shriram, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 866/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263Section 56Section 69

…t (stock-in-trade). The appellant has also cited the judgement of Bombay, Madras, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the following cases: 1) CIT vs. Girish Mohan Ganeriwale 260 ITR 417(P & H) 2) CIT vs. Ramaamirtham 306 ITR 239 (Mad.) 3) CTR vs. Gopal Purohit 228 ITR 582 (Mum) To state that where it had been accepted as capital gains in the earlier years, the same cannot be treated as stock-in-trade in the subsequent years. In view of the above discussion, the detailed factors and past history of the appellant, it is seen that the appellant’s intention was to hold the shares as “investment” and not as stock-in-t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Krishna Shriram, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1417/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263Section 56Section 69

…t (stock-in-trade). The appellant has also cited the judgement of Bombay, Madras, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the following cases: 1) CIT vs. Girish Mohan Ganeriwale 260 ITR 417(P & H) 2) CIT vs. Ramaamirtham 306 ITR 239 (Mad.) 3) CTR vs. Gopal Purohit 228 ITR 582 (Mum) To state that where it had been accepted as capital gains in the earlier years, the same cannot be treated as stock-in-trade in the subsequent years. In view of the above discussion, the detailed factors and past history of the appellant, it is seen that the appellant’s intention was to hold the shares as “investment” and not as stock-in-t…

Anand Jain, Mumbai vs. CIT Cen-III, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3895/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3895/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Anand Jain, The Commissioner Of बनाम/ A-13, Sterling Apartments, Income Tax , Central – Iii, V. 38, Peddar Road, Room No. 109, Mumbai – 400 026. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpj1890J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ale of shares and securities was in the nature of capital gain and the appellant treated the same ITA 3895/Mum/2013 3 accordingly as per the provisions of the Income tax Act and as per the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit v. JCIT (228 ITR 582) as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the order of the learned CIT directing the Assessing Officer to make enquiries on the above lines and pass fresh assessment order be quashed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that this appeal of the assessee has arisen against the order dated 25th March 2013 passed by learned CIT u/s 263…

D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S A.K.G Finvest Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1341/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 73

…between 7 months and 18 months. These transactions of sale of OBC shares were done through recognised stock exchange and were subjected to STT. The appellant in the written submission relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit 228 ITR 582 (Bombay) and the case of CIT Vs. Consolidated Invest Holding Ltd. 337 ITR 264 Delhi High Court to support his contention the purchase of shares of OBC was in nature of investment rather than in nature of business and explained that the shares were sold as the prices started declining and the appellant wanted to stop its loss. There were no intrad…

1) CIT vs. Girish Mohan Ganeriwale 260 ITR 417(P & H) 2) CIT v. Ramaamirtham (228 ITR 582) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax