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.

Kamal Kishor Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 4463/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2006-07
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,…

ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4243/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4303/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(3), बनाम/ 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl 1082 G (Assessee) : (Revenue) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4243/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Asst. Cit-6(3), Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl 1082 G (Revenue) (Assessee) : Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhatt : Shri S. R. Singh Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E. By The Assessee & The Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Vi, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’For Short) Dated 20.5.2009, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 31.12.2007 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06. 2

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC); ii. XYZ/ABC Equity Fund, In re [2001] 250 ITR 194; iii. A. V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1963] 48 ITR (SC) 67; iv. CIT vs. P. K. N. Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 65 (SC); v. CIT vs. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 586 (SC); vi. G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (35 ITR 194); vii. CIT vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Limited (100 ITR 706); and viii. CIT vs. H. Hoick Larsen [1986] 160 ITR 67 (SC). However, for the sake of completeness of our order, we may analyse his findings and which remains undisputed or uncontroverted even before us: (a) Firstly, in…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.B. Finmart Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1145/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M P Rastogi, Adv
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…e & sale of shares are to be considered under the head ‘income from capital gain’. He has also placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 6 I.T.A.No.1145/Del/2014 CIT Vs Associated Industrial Development Co. P. Ltd. reported in 82 ITR 586. 8. We have perused the arguments advanced by both the parties, orders passed by authorities below as well as the judgements relied upon by the Ld. A.R. It is observed that’s the assessee has maintained itself throughout as investor. Ld. Assessing Officer had negated the assessee’s contention merely because of the dealing in shares by the assessee…

Mr. Chetan Kantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(3), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 637/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)

…he assessee and it is for the assessee to produce evidence from his records as to whether he maintained any distinction between shares which were hold by him as investments and those hold as stock in trade. (CIT v/s Associated Industrial Development co. Ltd., 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., 113 ITR 173 (Guj);…

DCIT Cir - 6, Kolkata. vs. M/S K.B. Capital Markets Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &
Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

…he assessee and it is for the assessee to produce evidence from his records as to whether he maintained any distinction between shares which were hold by him as investments and those hold as stock in trade. (CIT Vs. Associated Industrial Development co. Ltd., 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., 113 ITR 173 (Guj);…

Kb Capital Markets (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I, .T Cir - 6, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &
Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

…he assessee and it is for the assessee to produce evidence from his records as to whether he maintained any distinction between shares which were hold by him as investments and those hold as stock in trade. (CIT Vs. Associated Industrial Development co. Ltd., 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., 113 ITR 173 (Guj);…

DCIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata vs. M/S. Hobb International Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 1383/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1383/Kol/2010 Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niloy Baran Som JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…he assessee and it is for the assessee to produce evidence from his records as to whether he maintained any distinction between shares which were hold by him as investments and those hold as stock in trade. (CIT Vs. Associated Industrial Development co. Ltd., 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 5 6 ITA No.1383/Kol2010&C.O.92/Kol/2010 M/s. HobbInternational Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2004-05 of business profits and…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1431/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ivity and subject to some risk. ITA No. 1180, 1181 & others :- 24 -: The investments in mutual funds are made out of own funds with minimum risk and also submitted his arguments with the decisions of CIT vs. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P) Ltd (82 ITR 586), Trinetram Consultants (P) Ltd vs. DCIT 34 taxman.com 39, Janak Rangwalla vs. ACIT 11 SOT 627 and prayed for treating the such income as short term capital gain. 4.18. Contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities and opposed to the ground of the assessee. 4.19 We heard the rival submissions and pe…

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1180/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ivity and subject to some risk. ITA No. 1180, 1181 & others :- 24 -: The investments in mutual funds are made out of own funds with minimum risk and also submitted his arguments with the decisions of CIT vs. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P) Ltd (82 ITR 586), Trinetram Consultants (P) Ltd vs. DCIT 34 taxman.com 39, Janak Rangwalla vs. ACIT 11 SOT 627 and prayed for treating the such income as short term capital gain. 4.18. Contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities and opposed to the ground of the assessee. 4.19 We heard the rival submissions and pe…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. Dreamland Build Tech P. Ltd

ITA/886/2015HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 143(3)

…$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 6. + ITA 829/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. versus DREAMLAND BUILD TECH P. LTD. Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Mr. Somi Agarwal and Ms. Monika Ghai, Advocates. WITH 7. + ITA 908/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. versus DREAMLAND BUILD TECH P. LTD. Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Mr. Somi Agarwal and Ms. Mon…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -3 vs. Dreamland Build Tech P. Ltd

ITA/829/2015HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 143(3)

…$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 6. + ITA 829/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. versus DREAMLAND BUILD TECH P. LTD. Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Mr. Somi Agarwal and Ms. Monika Ghai, Advocates. WITH 7. + ITA 908/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. versus DREAMLAND BUILD TECH P. LTD. Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Mr. Somi Agarwal and Ms. Mon…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 vs. Dreamland Build Tech P. Ltd

ITA/908/2015HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 143(3)

…$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 6. + ITA 829/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. versus DREAMLAND BUILD TECH P. LTD. Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Mr. Somi Agarwal and Ms. Monika Ghai, Advocates. WITH 7. + ITA 908/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. versus DREAMLAND BUILD TECH P. LTD. Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Mr. Somi Agarwal and Ms. Mon…

Rajeshwar Raj Bajaj, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 3200/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3200/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Rajeshwar Raj Bajaaj, Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Income Tax – 12(2), V. Co.,506, Lotus House, 5T H 1St Floor, Floor,33-A, New Marine R. No. 123, Lines,Mumbai – 400 020. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aafpb 2036G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikward (Sr
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…in shares and the same cannot be termed as investment. The A.O. relied upon the CBDT Circular No. 4/2007 dated 15/06/2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta v. Associated Industrial Development Company (P) Ltd. (82 ITR 586) ITA 3200/Mum/2012 4 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Holck Larsen (160 ITR 67), AAR Ruling in 288 ITR 641. Thus, the A.O. held that the transactions in shares entered into by the assessee cannot be treated as investment in shares and accordingly the resultant income/loss arising out of them cannot be treated as income/loss under the h…

Karodia Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. 9(2), Mumbai

ITA 7306/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण,"ए” खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh.Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No./7306/Mum/2012 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 वष" Koradia Construction Pvt. Ltd. The DCIT, Range-9(2) C-402, Gokul Divine, Irla Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.V.Road, Vile Parle (W) Vs. Churchgate , Mumbai-20 Mumbai-400 056. PAN:AAACK 9154 E (अपीलाथ" /Appe…

ITO, Ward - 12(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Manimaya Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 439/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Sallong yaden, Addl.CIT,Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

…/2009-M/s. Manimaya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2005-06 treated as investment and not as stock in trade. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Madan Gopal Radheylal 73 ITR 652 and CIT vs Associated Trial Development Co.Ltd. 82 ITR 586 wherein it was held that there is no prohibition in law for a person to hold a particular commodity as stock in trade of the business and at the same time hold similar commodity as investment. The Hon’ble Court held that one has to gather the intention of the persons holding a commodity. Thereafter the CIT(A)referred to the decisions of the Hon’bl…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Arvind Rajkishore Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, assessment framed on the basis of such invalid and in appropriate reasons is also quashed”

ITA 7137/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…a 141 ITR 953 (AP).  CIT vs Bazpur Co-op Sugar Factory Ltd 172 ITR 330. Circular No.4/2007 dated 1 5.06.2007 issued by CBDT subsequent to Supreme Court decisions in the cases of :- CIT (Central) Calcutta Vs. Associated Industrial Development Company (P) Ltd (82 ITR 586), CIT, Bombay Vs. H. Hock Larsen (160 (TR 67) also offer appropriate guidance and directions on this issue. Therefore I have reason to believe & I am satisfied that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for A.Y.2006-07. Proceedings u/s.147 of the Act are therefore initiated. Issue notice u/s.1 48 of the Act. (XXX) D…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ascot Investments, New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 657/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:

For Appellant: ShriVed Jain AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain CIT(DR) &
Section 153CSection 48

…(i) Ram Narain Sons (P) Ltd. v CIT as reported in 411 TR 534 (SC), (ii) Dwarkadas Kesardev Morarka as reported in 44 ITR 625 (SC), (iii) CIT vs. Madan Gopal Radheylal as reported in 73 ITR 652 (SC) , (iv) CIT v. Associated Development Co. Ltd. as reported in 82 ITR 586 (SC). 20. The above judgments clearly state that the same person can be a trader as well as investor in shares. 21. In a recent decision of Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sarmath Infrastructure (P) Ltd. as reported in 16 DTR (Lucknow) (Trib) 97, a view had been taken in favour of the assessee after fully 'considering the CBDT circula…

I.T.O WD - 44(4), Kolkata vs. Sri Sailesh Jalan, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1880/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sallong Yoden, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Agarwala, FCA
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “A”, KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-44(4), .-versus- Sri Sailesh Jalan Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:ACVPJ2444E) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) For the Appellant : Sallong Yoden, JCIT, Sr.DR For the Respondent : Shri Mahendra Agarwala, FCA Date of Hearing : 16.02.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2016. ORDER Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 23.08.2012 and of CIT(A)-XXX, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2007-08. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenu…

Sonal Vipul Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7040/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 7040/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(1)

…rdinate bench have decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant para no. 10 of ITA No. 6497/Mum/09 and others is extracted as under: “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Associated Industrial Development Co P Ltd reported in 82 ITR 586 as well as in the case o CIT vs. H Holsck Larzen reported in 160 ITR 67 has laid down various principles, which has been considered by the CBDT for issuing the circular no. 4/2007 dated 15.6.2007. In short, the principles laid down in those cases for deciding the question of nature of the transaction as trading or investment, mainly/broadly are:-…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. H.K. Financiers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1526/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Patodi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N o n e
Section 143(3)

…rtant case laws mentioned as under for deciding this issue: CIT V. H. Holck Larsen (1986) 160 ITR 67 (SC) CIT V. Rewashankar A Kothari (2006) 201 CTR 510 (Guj) CIT V. Ramamrithans (2008) 217 CTR 206 (Mad) CIT V. Associated Industrial Development Co. Ltd. (SC) 82 ITR 586 Janak S. Rangwalla V. ACIT (2007) 11 SOT 627 (Mum. Trib.) CIT V. N.S.S. Investments P. Ltd. (2005) 277 ITR 149 (Mad) Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. V. ITO (220) 115 TTJ 639 (Mum. Trib.) Gopal Purohit V. JCIT, 25(3), Mumbai (2009) 29 SOT 117 (Mum.Trib.) Sarnath Infrastructure P. Ltd. V. ACIT (2009) 313 ITR (AT) 13 (Lucknow) DCIT V. Reena Sarogi ITA No. 1202…