CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.

39 ITR 706High Court1960#1059 most cited

What is CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. authority for?

The law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Profits charged to tax must be in accordance with law and not amount to taxing notional income.

103

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. · section 28 · business income · trading transactions · maximum profit · notional income · taxability · mercantile system of accounting

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 198Section 199Section 147Section 211Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 28(iv)surrender of incomeright to receivemercantile system of accountingloose paperssection 28section 234asection 133aincome-tax officersection 131section 115bbesection 139(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.

Karmayogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Hq, Pune

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2263/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Krantiagrani Dr. G.D. Bapu Lad Ssk Ltd, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2214/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Krantiagrani Dr. G.D. Bapu Lad Ssk Ltd, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2213/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar vs. Ashok Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2200/PUN/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Nira Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2179/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Aurangabad vs. M/S. Vaidyanath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Beed

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2167/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Manganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2071/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Pd. Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2060/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Shri. Mahankali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1989/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Vridheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1960/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Appasaheb Nalawade Gadhinglaj Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1953/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Manganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1915/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Mohanrao Shindesahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1897/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1886/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Karmaveer Shankarrao Kale Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1876/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Sonhira Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1783/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Sonhira Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1782/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Rajarambapu Patil Ssk Limited, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1767/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Tatyasaheb Kore Warana Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1756/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…

Sadashivrao Mandlik Kagal Tal. Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1731/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…) 67 ITR 11 (SC), that the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit out of his trading transactions. Reliance was also placed on certain other decisions including CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC); H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 39 ITR 706 (Bom.); CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. Vs. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 363 (Cal.); Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Vs. Union of India 341 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the profit charged to tax by the authorities below was not in ac…