CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd.

82 ITR 586Supreme Court of India1971#1154 most cited

What is CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The assessee has the burden to prove whether shares are held as investments or as stock-in-trade. This requires the assessee to produce evidence from their records clearly distinguishing between shares held for investment and those held as stock-in-trade.

98

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co. · 82 ITR 586 · capital gains vs business income · shares as investment or stock-in-trade · burden of proof on assessee · evidence from records · distinction of share holdings · Section 14 · Section 143 · classification of share transactions

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 114Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

short term capital gainsshort term capital gainlong term capital gainslong term capital gainsection 10transfercompanysection 143businesssection 14section 143(3)india

Judgments citing CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd.

Chandra Ramesh, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos371, 372 &

ITA 371/CHNY/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. AsishTripati, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…itself irrespective of the holding period of the shares opts to treat them as stock in trade, the income. "(copy of the circular enclosed)' 5. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Centra!), Calcutta Vs Associated Industrial Development Company (P) Ltd (82 ITR 586), the Supreme Court observed that: "Whether a particular holding of shares is by way of investment or forms part of the stock-in-trade is a matter which is within the knowledge of the assessee who holds the shares and it should, in normal circumstances, be in a position to produce evidence from its records as to whether it has maintained any disti…

Vidyasagar M.P Sah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 527/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vidyasagar M. P. Sah Dy. Cit-23(3), बनाम/ 22-A, Bandstand Society, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 197-C, Kane Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafps 5412 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Aarjoo Garodia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.01.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs.3,51,66,426/- Treated As Business Income 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs.3,51,66,426/- As 'Business Income1 Without Appreciating The Crucial Facts That The Assessee Is A Professional / Consultant For Exploration & Drilling Activities For Oil Wells / Rigs Etc. Which Is The Principal Source Of Income Since 32 Years, Wherein He Has To Devote Maximum Time & The Activity Has Been Accepted By The Department In All The Prior Years As Well As In The Relevant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Aarjoo Garodia

…tions or they were in the nature of investment is a mixed question of law and facts as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. H. Hoick Larsen 160 ITR 67. It is further held in the case of CIT vs. Associated Industrial Development Co. P. Ltd. 82 ITR 586 that it is possible that the assesses to be both an investor as well as dealer in shares. Whether a particular holding is by way of investment or form part of stock-in-trade is a mater within the knowledge of the assesses and it is for the assessee to produce evidence from the records as to whether he maintained any distinction between shares whic…

Subhash N Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1989/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No.1989/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Subhash N Shah (HUF), Asstt. Commissioner of Income Flat No.1303, Raghunath Tower, Tax- 25(2), बनाम/ Devidas Lane, Borivali (W), Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai-400103. (अपीऱार्थी /Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAAHS5954D अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Dinkle Haria प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent by : Shri Purushottam Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 21.9.2017 घोषणा…

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5845/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 133(6)

…aking the transaction. In Gopal Purohit (supra), the assessee has been continually holding the shares as investment from year to year. This is not the situation in the instant case. In the case of CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd., [1971] 82 ITR 586, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "Whether a particular holding of shares is by way of investment or forms part of the stock-in-trade is a matter which is within the knowledge of the assessee who holds the shares and he should, in normal circumstances, be in a position to produce evidence from his records as to whether he has maintained an…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Rohan P Shah, Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3160/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Nishit Gandhi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Pooja Swaroop, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)(ii)

…he nature of capital gain or business income) shall continue to be decided keeping in view the aforesaid Circulars issued by the CBDT. 9 Rohan P.Shah Assessment Year 2008-09 Further Apex Court in CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 586 (SC) has observed that:- “Whether a particular holding of shares is by way of investment or forms part of the stock-in- trade is a matter which is within the knowledge of the assessee who holds the shares and it should, in normal circumstances, be in a position to produce evidence from its records as to whether it has maintained any distinction be…

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

…[1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC); CIT v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal [1969] 73 ITR 652 (SC); CIT v Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd. [1971] 4 | P a g e ACIT,Vs. Datavision Systems P Ltd ITA No. 5957/Del/2010 & 4260/Del/2012 Assessment Year:2007-08 and 2008-09 82 ITR 586 (SC); P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 735 (SC) and CIT v N.S.S. Investments (P.) Ltd. [2005] 277 ITR 149/[2007] 158 Taxman 13 (Mad). It was in the light of these decisions that the CBDT Circular No. 4/2007, was issued, indicating the principles applicable in this regard. These criteria are: (1) Intention of the assessee at the time o…

ACIT 30 (1), Mumbai vs. Jignesh Madhukant Mehta, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3742/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3742/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) Jignesh Madhukant Mehta, Assistant Commissioner 53, Of Income Tax 30(1) C-13, 5Th Floor Rustomjee Regency बनाम/ Room No. 503 Adarsh Marve Road Vs. Pratyakshkar Bhavan Malad(W) Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400 064 Mumbai 400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acrpm-4513-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Hemant Vora ,Ld. ARFor Respondent: Arun Kumar, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ansaction (i.e. whether the same is in the nature of capital gain or business income) shall continue to be decided keeping in view the aforesaid Circulars issued by the CBDT. Further Apex Court in CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 586 (SC) has observed that:- “Whether a particular holding of shares is by way of investment or forms part of the stock- in-trade is a matter which is within the knowledge of the assessee who holds the shares 6 Jignesh Madhukant Mehta Assessment Year 2010-11 and it should, in normal circumstances, be in a position to produce evidence from its records…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mahesh Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 173/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 271A

…ITR 242 (SC) " Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v Commissioner of Income tax [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC) " Commissioner of Income tax v Jagarnath Prasad Chhawchharia 176 ITR 217 (HC-Patna) " Commissioner of Income-tax v Associated Industrial Development Co. (P) Limited (1971) 82 ITR 586 (SC) " Shah-La Investment and Financial Consultants (P) Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Income tax [2005] 2 SOT 371 (ITAT- Hyderabad) 18 Mahesh Kumar " Geeta Devl Mahipal v Income tax officer [2004] I SOT 468 (ITAT-Jodhpur) " Hitesh Satishchandra Doshi Etemia v Joint Commissioner of Income tax (ITA No. 6497/Mum/2009) ITAT, Mumbai " Mahendra C. S…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1527/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…it is for the assessee to produce evidence from his records as to whether he maintained any distinction between shares which were held by him as investments and those held as stock in trade. CIT vs Associated Industrial Development Co. Ltd reported in (1971) 82 ITR 586 (SC) (c ) Treatment in the books by an assessee will not be conclusive. If the volume, frequency and regularity with which transactions are carried out indicate systematic and organized activity with profit motive, then it would be a case of business profits and not capital gain. CIT vs Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd reported in (1978) 11…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…it is for the assessee to produce evidence from his records as to whether he maintained any distinction between shares which were held by him as investments and those held as stock in trade. CIT vs Associated Industrial Development Co. Ltd reported in (1971) 82 ITR 586 (SC) (c ) Treatment in the books by an assessee will not be conclusive. If the volume, frequency and regularity with which transactions are carried out indicate systematic and organized activity with profit motive, then it would be a case of business profits and not capital gain. CIT vs Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd reported in (1978) 11…

D.C.I.T CC - VIII, Kolkata vs. M/S Purbanchal Leasing Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1429/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan,J.M. & Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT,DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.1429/Kol/2013-M/s. Purvanchal Leasing Ltd. A.Y.2006-07 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA (Before Shri N. V. Vasudevan,J.M. & Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M.) ITA No. 1429/Kol/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-2007 DCIT,Central Circle-VIII, Vs M/s. Purvanchal leasing Kolkata. Ltd. 31, Shibtolla Street, PAN: AACCP9719J Kolkata (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCA. Revenue by : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT,DR Date of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 19.10.2016 ORDER Per Shri N. V. Vasudevan, J.M. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order da…

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

…ted in a number of decisions. These include Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, [1969] 73 ITR 652 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v Associated Industrial Development Company 82 ITR 586 (SC); P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income- tax, Kerala, 73 ITR 735 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Income Tax v NSS Investments Ltd 2007 (277) ITR 149 (Mad). It was in the light of these decisions that the CBDT Circular No. 4/2007, was issued, indicating the principles applicable in this regard. These criteria are: ITA517-12 Page 6 (1) I…

Koradia Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2265/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2265/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Koradia Construction Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner बनाम/ Ltd., Of Income Tax – 9(2), Vs. C-402, Gokul Divine, Irla, Mumbai. S.V. Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 056. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaack 9154 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Sinha

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “A” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2265/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Koradia Construction Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner बनाम/ Ltd., of Income Tax – 9(2), Vs. C-402, Gokul Divine, Irla, Mumbai. S.V. Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 056. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAACK 9154 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by Shri Vimal Punmiya Respondent by : Shri Ashwani Sinha सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 26-8-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of P…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3549/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ital gain as shown by the assessee.” 36. The assessee also made a reference to Circular No. 4 of 2007 dated June 15, 2007 issued by the CBDT and the reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Associated Industrial Development Co. P. Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 586 (SC) " CIT Vs Holck Larsen (1986) 160 ITR 67 (SC) 37. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee had furnished documents relating to transaction of shares, broker’s ledger account and bills (contract notes). He further observed that the authorized representative of the assessee denied that the broke…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3546/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ital gain as shown by the assessee.” 36. The assessee also made a reference to Circular No. 4 of 2007 dated June 15, 2007 issued by the CBDT and the reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Associated Industrial Development Co. P. Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 586 (SC) " CIT Vs Holck Larsen (1986) 160 ITR 67 (SC) 37. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee had furnished documents relating to transaction of shares, broker’s ledger account and bills (contract notes). He further observed that the authorized representative of the assessee denied that the broke…

R.R. Hosiery, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5408/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5408/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09) बनधम/ M/S R R Hosiery, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate 18(2) Vs. Off Dr.E Mosel Road, Mumbai. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaafr1054R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B S Bist
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the scrutiny proceeding, therefore, the principle of consistency was required to be followed in the current year also. In defence of his arguments, the ld.AR relied on the decisions in the case of CIT V/s Associated Industrial Development Co.(P.) Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 586 (SC) and CIT V/s H. Holck Larsen [1986] 160 ITR 67 (SC). Finally, the ld.AR placed before us a copy of circular issued by the CBDT vide Circular No.6 of 2016, dated 29.2.2016 wherein it has been provided that if the shares and securities held for a period of more than 12 months before the transfer and the assessee desires to treat the income arisi…

ACIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. Laxmi M Chaturvedi, Mumbai

ITA 7457/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 A C I T - 32(2) Smt. Laxmi M. Chaturvedi Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan Tara-1002, Tara Apt. बनाम/ Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor Dhruv Tara Chs, Shiv Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Vallabh Road, Ashokvan Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Borivali (E), Mumbai 400066 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aacpc3302M

…rcular No. 4 of 2007 dated 15.06.2007 was also considered and finally considering the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Yatish Trading Co. P. Ltd. along with the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Associate Industrial Development Co. 82 ITR 586 and held that there was no reason to treat the capital gain component as part of income. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2.2 If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld.…

Kamal Kishore Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 3515/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Rutuja PawarFor Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM AND RAM LAL NEGI, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3515/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mr. Kamal Kishore Agarwal ITO-24(2)(1), C-13/606, बिधम/ D-602, Panchvati Garden, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Upper Govind Nagar, Malad (East), B.K.C. Bandra (East), Vs. Mumbai-400 097. Mumbai-400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. ADOPA 3782G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2009 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Mr. Kamal Kishore Agarwal ACIT, Range 24(2), बिधम/ D-602,…

Nimish Chandulal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 7318/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7318/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mr. Nimish Chandulal Shah Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ 401-A, Pleasant Parek, Income Tax Range 2(1) Vs. 65, Peddar Road, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400026 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahps6423N

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A. KariaFor Respondent: Smt. Pooja Swaroop
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…rt of these contentions the representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in CIT Vs. Avinash Jain (2012) (Delhi High Court) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta Vs. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 586 and CIT Vs. Consolidated Finvest & Holding Ltd. (2012) 337 ITR 264 (Delhi). 5. On the other hand the learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A). Copy of order for A.Y.2008-09 lies at page nos.75 to 77 and copy for A.Y.2009-10 lies at page nos. 65 to 74 speaks about these facts that the assesse…

DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Kamal Kioshor Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 5974/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Rutuja PawarFor Respondent: Shri Morya Pratap
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM AND RAM LAL NEGI, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3515/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mr. Kamal Kishore Agarwal ITO-24(2)(1), C-13/606, बिधम/ D-602, Panchvati Garden, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Upper Govind Nagar, Malad (East), B.K.C. Bandra (East), Vs. Mumbai-400 097. Mumbai-400 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. ADOPA 3782G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2009 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Mr. Kamal Kishore Agarwal ACIT, Range 24(2), बिधम/ D-602,…