CIT v. Ashokbhai B. Shah

218 ITR 331High Court1996#13757 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 358,351 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. Ashokbhai B. Shah

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 744/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. V. Asst. Cit, Cc 8, Bhaktawar, 6Th Floor, Old Cgo Blgd, 8Th Floor, Near Church Gate, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 80HSection 80I

…must be a ready purchase and forward sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22: (1993(203 ITR 304 (Guj). This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234: (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be speculative transactions. In other words, although contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) would otherwise fall within the defini…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 8, Mumbai

In the result the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 552/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. V. Asst. Cit, Cc 8, Bhaktawar, 6Th Floor, Old Cgo Blgd, 8Th Floor, Near Church Gate, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 80HSection 80I

…must be a ready purchase and forward sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22: (1993(203 ITR 304 (Guj). This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234: (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be speculative transactions. In other words, although contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) would otherwise fall within the defini…

ACIT CC-8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…e 22 of 39 23 Jindal Drugs Ltd. sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22 : (1993( 203 ITR 304 (Guj) :. This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234 : (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be speculative transactions. In other words, although contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) would otherwise fall within the defini…

ACIT CC.8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3885/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…e 22 of 39 23 Jindal Drugs Ltd. sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22 : (1993( 203 ITR 304 (Guj) :. This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234 : (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be speculative transactions. In other words, although contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) would otherwise fall within the defini…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3818/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…e 22 of 39 23 Jindal Drugs Ltd. sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22 : (1993( 203 ITR 304 (Guj) :. This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234 : (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be speculative transactions. In other words, although contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) would otherwise fall within the defini…

ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai vs. M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4342/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…e 22 of 39 23 Jindal Drugs Ltd. sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22 : (1993( 203 ITR 304 (Guj) :. This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234 : (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be speculative transactions. In other words, although contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) would otherwise fall within the defini…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. M/S. ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2592/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…e 22 of 39 23 Jindal Drugs Ltd. sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22 : (1993( 203 ITR 304 (Guj) :. This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234 : (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be speculative transactions. In other words, although contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) would otherwise fall within the defini…

CIT v. Ashokbhai B. Shah (218 ITR 331) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax