C.I.T., Delhi-II v. Rohtak Textile Mills Ltd.

138 ITR 195High Court1982#16691 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 194IA Section 2(42A)

Judgments citing C.I.T., Delhi-II v. Rohtak Textile Mills Ltd.

Smt. Shree Jain, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, we hold that

ITA 2565/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmt. Shree Jain, 17/1, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Anurag Ali Asker Rod, Off. Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai. Chunningham Road, 1/24, Room No.634, Aayakar Bhawan, Marsh Bangalore-560052. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. Pan/Gir No:Aarpj4573A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…8.2015. Since the period of holding was less than 36 months, it was a "short-term capital gain”. The AO, accordingly, computed STCG of Rs.4,56,13,937/-. He also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Rohtak Textile Mills Ltd., 138 ITR 195 (Del.) where it was held that ITA No.2565/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17 Smt. Shree Jain capital gain arising from transfer of capital asset is chargeable to tax in the year of transfer, even though consideration was not ascertained and was in dispute. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee raised grou…

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Surendra Nath Gubbala, Visakhapatnam

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

…ed Hussain Merchant (2002) 144 Taxmann 720 (Bom). vii) Rajendra Mining Syndicate Vs. CIT (1991) 43 ITR 460 (AP). viii) CIT Vs. Jagadish Sugar Mills (1974) Tax LR 526 (All.) ix) CIT Vs. MD Manohar Rao (1985) 155 ITR 696 (AP). x) Rohtak Textile Mills Ltd (1982) 138 ITR 195 (Del). xi) B.N. Pinto Vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 306 (Kar). xii) CIT Vs. C.V. Soundararajan (1984) 150 ITR 80 (Mad). xiii) CIT Vs. Abrar Ali (2001) 247 ITR 312 (Bom). xiv) Mala Kumar Vs. Asst. CIT (2020) Tax Pub (DT) 2107 (Delhi-Trib.) xv) CIT Vs. Eagle Theaters (2021) 205 Taxmann 449 (Del). xvi) Devendra Kumar Shroff, Kolkata Vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolk…

Universal Medicare P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for

ITA 4418/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanuniversal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Capsulation Premises, Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Mumbai-400088. Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Pan: Aaacu0717B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 268/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Capsulation Premises, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room Mumbai-400088. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Pan: Aaacu0717B India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate With Shri Manish Shah Advocate Respondent By : Mrs. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Shah AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 254(1)Section 50B

…which the Capital Gains arise is not dependent on the supply agreement. In support of her submission, the ld. DR for the revenue relied upon the following decisions:  T.A. Taylor (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 622/Chny/2017 dt. 19.07.2018.  CIT vs. Rohtak Textiles Ltd. 138 ITR 195 (Del.)  Ajay Guliya vs. ACIT [2012] 24 taxman.com 276(Del.) dt. 16.07.2012.  E.D. Sasson & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (267 ITR 27 (SC).  Morvi Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 835.  CIT vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC).  CIT vs. Equinox Solution (P.) Ltd. [2017] 393 ITR 566 (SC). ITA No. 4418 M 16 & C.O. 268 M 17-Universal Medicar…

ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Atul Pravinchandra Parekh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1344/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2008-09 Ito-15(3)(1), Shri Atul Pravinchandra Room No.106, Parekh बनाम/ Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, 303, Shobha Apartment, 3Rd Vs. Tardeo Road, Floor, S.No. Road, Mumbai-400007 Tambe Nagar, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Ambpp5491R

Section 143(1)Section 69B

…duty purposes is not relevant. From language of section 48(1)(a), it follows that all expenditure incidental to the transfer must be deducted in 7 Shri Atul Pravinchandra Prakash computing the amount of capital gains (CIT vs Rohtak Textiles Mills Ltd. )(1982) 138 ITR 195 (Del.), CIT vs Soundra Rajan (150 ITR 80). So far as, application of section 50C and consequent addition made u/s 69B of the Act is concerned, in the present appeal, the assessee is a buyer of the flat, therefore, section 50C of the Act, under the facts narrated hereinabove, is not applicable and even otherwise, section 69B has been added merely…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. United Provinces Electric Supply Co

In the result, appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006325-006325 - 1995Supreme Court17 Apr 2000

For Respondent: UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY

Section 256(1)Section 32(1)Section 41(2)Section 6Section 7A

…t Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(1972) 86 ITR 501 (Delhi)] and held that moneys payable became due when they were ascertained and not on the date of possession of the properties. In C.I.T., Delhi-II v. Rohtak Textile Mills Ltd., [(1982) 138 ITR 195 (Delhi)], the Delhi High Court followed its earlier decision and the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court. In CIT, Karnataka v. Sheshappa Hegde [(1984) 150 ITR 164, Karnataka] the assessee had purchased two motor http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10 vehicles in 1973 and 1975. They were…