106 (Del. HC) 3. ITO v. Rohit Anand

374 ITR 550High Court2015#8625 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing 106 (Del. HC) 3. ITO v. Rohit Anand

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1311/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250

…n 11 and 12 is allowed. There is no change either in facts or in law in AY 2016-17 from those in preceding years as evidenced from the orders of assessment for AY 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 appearing at pages 46-49 of Paper Book. In CIT vs. Amit Jain (2015) 374 ITR 550 (Del) and in CIT vs. Denso India Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 62 (Del) Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where the AO has been following a view for the past several years, he cannot depart from the same when there has been no change in law or facts. 15 9. We may note the facts and decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT (Exemption) vs. Hamdard N…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5656/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…capital gain. Some of the judgments are as under: - 1. CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) [Also confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court] 2. CIT vs. Vinay Mittal, 208 taxman 106 (Del. HC) 3. ITO vs. Rohit Anand, (2009) 34 SOT 42 (Del.) 4. CIT vs. Amit Jain, 374 ITR 550 (Del.) 5. CIT vs. Sahara India Housing Corporation Ltd., ITA No.740/2009 (Del.) 18. In the light of the catena of decision Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and also some of the judgment affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts as discussed above, the earlier years Tribunal order cannot be held to have any binding precedence and accor…

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 2087/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…capital gain. Some of the judgments are as under: - 1. CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) [Also confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court] 2. CIT vs. Vinay Mittal, 208 taxman 106 (Del. HC) 3. ITO vs. Rohit Anand, (2009) 34 SOT 42 (Del.) 4. CIT vs. Amit Jain, 374 ITR 550 (Del.) 5. CIT vs. Sahara India Housing Corporation Ltd., ITA No.740/2009 (Del.) 18. In the light of the catena of decision Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and also some of the judgment affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts as discussed above, the earlier years Tribunal order cannot be held to have any binding precedence and accor…

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3785/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…capital gain. Some of the judgments are as under: - 1. CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) [Also confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court] 2. CIT vs. Vinay Mittal, 208 taxman 106 (Del. HC) 3. ITO vs. Rohit Anand, (2009) 34 SOT 42 (Del.) 4. CIT vs. Amit Jain, 374 ITR 550 (Del.) 5. CIT vs. Sahara India Housing Corporation Ltd., ITA No.740/2009 (Del.) 18. In the light of the catena of decision Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and also some of the judgment affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts as discussed above, the earlier years Tribunal order cannot be held to have any binding precedence and accord…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 701/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…capital gain. Some of the judgments are as under: - 1. CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) [Also confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court] 2. CIT vs. Vinay Mittal, 208 taxman 106 (Del. HC) 3. ITO vs. Rohit Anand, (2009) 34 SOT 42 (Del.) 4. CIT vs. Amit Jain, 374 ITR 550 (Del.) 5. CIT vs. Sahara India Housing Corporation Ltd., ITA No.740/2009 (Del.) 18. In the light of the catena of decision Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and also some of the judgment affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts as discussed above, the earlier years Tribunal order cannot be held to have any binding precedence and accord…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5054/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…capital gain. Some of the judgments are as under: - 1. CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) [Also confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court] 2. CIT vs. Vinay Mittal, 208 taxman 106 (Del. HC) 3. ITO vs. Rohit Anand, (2009) 34 SOT 42 (Del.) 4. CIT vs. Amit Jain, 374 ITR 550 (Del.) 5. CIT vs. Sahara India Housing Corporation Ltd., ITA No.740/2009 (Del.) 18. In the light of the catena of decision Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and also some of the judgment affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts as discussed above, the earlier years Tribunal order cannot be held to have any binding precedence and accor…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 820/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…capital gain. Some of the judgments are as under: - 1. CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) [Also confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court] 2. CIT vs. Vinay Mittal, 208 taxman 106 (Del. HC) 3. ITO vs. Rohit Anand, (2009) 34 SOT 42 (Del.) 4. CIT vs. Amit Jain, 374 ITR 550 (Del.) 5. CIT vs. Sahara India Housing Corporation Ltd., ITA No.740/2009 (Del.) 18. In the light of the catena of decision Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and also some of the judgment affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts as discussed above, the earlier years Tribunal order cannot be held to have any binding precedence and accor…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3078/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…capital gain. Some of the judgments are as under: - 1. CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) [Also confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court] 2. CIT vs. Vinay Mittal, 208 taxman 106 (Del. HC) 3. ITO vs. Rohit Anand, (2009) 34 SOT 42 (Del.) 4. CIT vs. Amit Jain, 374 ITR 550 (Del.) 5. CIT vs. Sahara India Housing Corporation Ltd., ITA No.740/2009 (Del.) 18. In the light of the catena of decision Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and also some of the judgment affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts as discussed above, the earlier years Tribunal order cannot be held to have any binding precedence and accor…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DATAVISION SYSTEMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5957/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Acit, Vs. Datavision Systems P Ltd, Circle-10(1), 203, Pragati House, New Delhi 47-48, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaacd3381N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Baheti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR

…assessing officer as capital gains. Therefore, in the earlier years as well as in the subsequent years the stand of the Ld. assessing officer was that assessee is an investor and not a Trader in shares. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Amit Jain 374 ITR 550 has held as under:- “8. The factors which Courts and Tribunals have to take into consideration whilst deciding whether income gained during a particular period is business income through purchase and sale of shares or other tradable capital assets, or capital gains on account of sale of such assets, has been spelt out and reiterated in a number o…

ACIT 12(2), MUMBAI vs. NEENA RAJAN MEHARA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7189/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 43

…uld not be accepted. It was further held that following the principle of consistency, the different view should not be taken, when facts and circumstances are identical, particularly in case of assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Amit Jain [2015] 374 ITR 550(Delhi) also held when that the value and the frequency of transactions are not conclusive factor. When the similar income in the past and in subsequent year accepted as capital gain and there is no distinctive material to differentiate the assessee’s activities for the assessment year under consideration, the principle of consistency must be foll…

JCIT RG 12(2), MUMBAI vs. NEENA RAJAN MEHRA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3015/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 43

…uld not be accepted. It was further held that following the principle of consistency, the different view should not be taken, when facts and circumstances are identical, particularly in case of assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Amit Jain [2015] 374 ITR 550(Delhi) also held when that the value and the frequency of transactions are not conclusive factor. When the similar income in the past and in subsequent year accepted as capital gain and there is no distinctive material to differentiate the assessee’s activities for the assessment year under consideration, the principle of consistency must be foll…

ITO 25(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. RENU GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6218/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Ito 25(2)(4) Renu Gupta C-11, R. No. 103, 110-C Lancelot ,S.V. Road, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092 Bandra Kurla Complex (E) Mumbai-400051 Pan No. Aacpg9852G Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…he Act. Further it is stated that assessment u/s 143(3) has been made by the AO for the A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14 without disturbing the capital gains shown by the assessee. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Amit Jain (2015) 374 ITR 550 (Delhi), CIT vs. Datta Mahendra Shah (2015) 378 ITR 0304 (Bom), DCIT vs. Shri Mahender Kumar Bader(ITA No. 605/JP/2013) for A.Y. 2008-09 and Tarujyot Investment Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 48 ITR (Trib) 33 (Ahmedabad). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We begin with the decision relied on by the ld. DR…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MALVIKA INVESTMENTS & SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 123/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv

…f the appellant.” 6. The ld.Sr.D.R. could not dispute these factual findings. Thus we apply the following judgements of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to the facts of this case. (1) CIT vs. Amit Jain Delhi High Court judgement dt. 03.03.2015 in ITA no.517/2012 (374 ITR 550), wherein it was held as follows. “8. The factors which Courts and Tribunals have to take into consideration whilst deciding whether income gained during a particular period is business income through purchase and sale of shares or other tradable capital assets, or capital gains on account of sale of such assets, has been spelt out and reiterate…