Calcutta in Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.

334 ITR 413High Court2011#7577 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 48Section 94(7)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 97(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 94(7)record datesection 94section 10(33)section 10(35)azadi bachao andolanperiod of holdingtax benefitcolourable devicesection 48order under section 148a(d)live link

Judgments citing Calcutta in Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. CIT & Anr.

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3002/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…m to have established beyond all reasonable doubts but he is completely silent as regards the onus lay upon him.” 6.19 Further, similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd.vs. CIT reported in 334 ITR 413 (2011) wherein it was held as under: “4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summed up thus :(a) The assessee had purchased 35 lakh units of UTI from Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. ("Peerless") on 29th May, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 14.75 per unit for a total consideration of Rs. 5,16,25,000. Those very units were…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3001/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…m to have established beyond all reasonable doubts but he is completely silent as regards the onus lay upon him.” 6.19 Further, similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd.vs. CIT reported in 334 ITR 413 (2011) wherein it was held as under: “4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summed up thus :(a) The assessee had purchased 35 lakh units of UTI from Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. ("Peerless") on 29th May, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 14.75 per unit for a total consideration of Rs. 5,16,25,000. Those very units were…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3000/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…m to have established beyond all reasonable doubts but he is completely silent as regards the onus lay upon him.” 6.19 Further, similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd.vs. CIT reported in 334 ITR 413 (2011) wherein it was held as under: “4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summed up thus :(a) The assessee had purchased 35 lakh units of UTI from Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. ("Peerless") on 29th May, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 14.75 per unit for a total consideration of Rs. 5,16,25,000. Those very units were…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands\ndismissed

ITA 2999/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20
Section 10(35)Section 133A

…have established\nbeyond all reasonable doubts but he is completely silent as\nregards the onus lay upon him.”\n6.19 Further, similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Calcutta\nHigh Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd.vs. CIT reported\nin 334 ITR 413 (2011) wherein it was held as under:\n“4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summed\nup thus :(a) The assessee had purchased 35 lakh units of UTI\nfrom Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. ("Peerless")\non 29th May, 1989 at the rate of Rs.14.75 per unit for a total\nconsideration of Rs.5,16,25,000. Those very units we…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI , MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2998/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…m to have established beyond all reasonable doubts but he is completely silent as regards the onus lay upon him.” 6.19 Further, similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd.vs. CIT reported in 334 ITR 413 (2011) wherein it was held as under: “4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summed up thus :(a) The assessee had purchased 35 lakh units of UTI from Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. ("Peerless") on 29th May, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 14.75 per unit for a total consideration of Rs. 5,16,25,000. Those very units were…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2996/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…m to have established beyond all reasonable doubts but he is completely silent as regards the onus lay upon him.” 6.19 Further, similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd.vs. CIT reported in 334 ITR 413 (2011) wherein it was held as under: “4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summed up thus :(a) The assessee had purchased 35 lakh units of UTI from Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. ("Peerless") on 29th May, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 14.75 per unit for a total consideration of Rs. 5,16,25,000. Those very units were…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2990/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…m to have established beyond all reasonable doubts but he is completely silent as regards the onus lay upon him.” 6.19 Further, similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd.vs. CIT reported in 334 ITR 413 (2011) wherein it was held as under: “4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summed up thus :(a) The assessee had purchased 35 lakh units of UTI from Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. ("Peerless") on 29th May, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 14.75 per unit for a total consideration of Rs. 5,16,25,000. Those very units were…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2988/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10(35)Section 133A

…m to have established beyond all reasonable doubts but he is completely silent as regards the onus lay upon him.” 6.19 Further, similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd.vs. CIT reported in 334 ITR 413 (2011) wherein it was held as under: “4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summed up thus :(a) The assessee had purchased 35 lakh units of UTI from Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. ("Peerless") on 29th May, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 14.75 per unit for a total consideration of Rs. 5,16,25,000. Those very units were…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. 2015 GROVER FAMILY TRUST, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5108/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 94(7)(E)

…rsed and ground number 4-7 of the appeal are allowed." 16. The ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon various other co- ordinate Bench decision and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 334 ITR 413. The relevant finding of which are as under:- "4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summed up thus (a) The assessee had purchased 35 lakh units of UTI from Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd "Peerless") on 29th May, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 14.75 per unit for a total consideration of Rs 5,16,25,000. Those very units…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. CMS COMPUTERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

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

ITA 5105/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 94(7)(E)

…rsed and ground number 4-7 of the appeal are allowed." 16. The ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon various other co- ordinate Bench decision and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 334 ITR 413. The relevant finding of which are as under:- "4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summed up thus (a) The assessee had purchased 35 lakh units of UTI from Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd "Peerless") on 29th May, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 14.75 per unit for a total consideration of Rs 5,16,25,000. Those very units…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. RASHESH MANHAR BHANSALI, ANDHERI EAST

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5107/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f the appeal are allowed." 16. The ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon various other co-ordinate Bench decision and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs. CIT 13 Rasesh Manhar Bhansali reported in 334 ITR 413. The relevant finding of which are as under:- "4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summed up thus (a) The assessee had purchased 35 lakh units of UTI from Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd "Peerless") on 29th May, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 14.75 per unit for a total consideration of Rs 5,16,25,000. Those very units…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SUNIL HARIPANT POPHALE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 448/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)

…e High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 222 (P&H) has laid down similar proposition and ITA Nos.301 & 447/PUN/2014 also the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. (2011) 334 ITR 413 (Cal). 28. Applying the said principles to the facts of present case, we thus, find no merit in the stand of Assessing Officer that the transaction of booking loss by selling shares by the assessee to his daughter is colourable device, cannot be accepted. Once the transaction has been entered into within four corners of law and the transaction h…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT. SUNITA AJAY RAMNATHKAR,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 447/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)

…e High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 222 (P&H) has laid down similar proposition and ITA Nos.301 & 447/PUN/2014 also the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. (2011) 334 ITR 413 (Cal). 28. Applying the said principles to the facts of present case, we thus, find no merit in the stand of Assessing Officer that the transaction of booking loss by selling shares by the assessee to his daughter is colourable device, cannot be accepted. Once the transaction has been entered into within four corners of law and the transaction h…

SUNIL HARIPANT POPHALE,,NASHIK vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INOCME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 322/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)

…e High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 222 (P&H) has laid down similar proposition and ITA Nos.301 & 447/PUN/2014 also the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. (2011) 334 ITR 413 (Cal). 28. Applying the said principles to the facts of present case, we thus, find no merit in the stand of Assessing Officer that the transaction of booking loss by selling shares by the assessee to his daughter is colourable device, cannot be accepted. Once the transaction has been entered into within four corners of law and the transaction h…

SMT. SUNITA AJAY RAMNATHKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 301/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)

…e High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 222 (P&H) has laid down similar proposition and ITA Nos.301 & 447/PUN/2014 also the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. (2011) 334 ITR 413 (Cal). 28. Applying the said principles to the facts of present case, we thus, find no merit in the stand of Assessing Officer that the transaction of booking loss by selling shares by the assessee to his daughter is colourable device, cannot be accepted. Once the transaction has been entered into within four corners of law and the transaction h…