CIT v. Consolidated Finvest

337 ITR 264High Court2011#9257 most cited

What is CIT v. Consolidated Finvest authority for?

Receipts are to be treated as income from capital gains and not as business income when the factual matrix is identical to prior decisions that have established this principle.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Consolidated Finvest · CIT v. Avinash Jain · capital gains · business income · receipt treatment · income from capital gains · income from business · factual matrix · ITAT decision · High Court decision

Judgments citing CIT v. Consolidated Finvest

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…)  CIT v. Vinay Mittal: 208 Taxman 106 (Del) [SLP dismissed by SC]  CIT v. Devasan Investment Pvt. Ltd. : 365 ITR 452 (Del) (Supreme Court has dismissed the Department’s SLP vide CC 17946/2014 : 229 Taxman 496)  CIT v. Consolidated Finvest and Holding Ltd: 337 ITR 264 (Del.)  CIT v. Avinash Jain : 362 ITR 441 (Del)  CIT v. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd: 236 CTR 1 (Del)  CIT v. Ess Jay Enterprises (P) Limited: 173 Taxman 1 (Del.)  Pace Industries Ltd. for A.Y. 2000-01 in ITA No.1106/Del/2004 (Del)  CIT vs. S. Ramaamirtham: 306 ITR 239 (Mad.)  CIT v. Trish Investments Ltd..: 305 ITR 434 (Mad).  CIT v. N.S.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…)  CIT v. Vinay Mittal: 208 Taxman 106 (Del) [SLP dismissed by SC]  CIT v. Devasan Investment Pvt. Ltd. : 365 ITR 452 (Del) (Supreme Court has dismissed the Department’s SLP vide CC 17946/2014 : 229 Taxman 496)  CIT v. Consolidated Finvest and Holding Ltd: 337 ITR 264 (Del.)  CIT v. Avinash Jain : 362 ITR 441 (Del)  CIT v. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd: 236 CTR 1 (Del)  CIT v. Ess Jay Enterprises (P) Limited: 173 Taxman 1 (Del.)  Pace Industries Ltd. for A.Y. 2000-01 in ITA No.1106/Del/2004 (Del)  CIT vs. S. Ramaamirtham: 306 ITR 239 (Mad.)  CIT v. Trish Investments Ltd..: 305 ITR 434 (Mad).  CIT v. N.S.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Vivita Relan, New Delhi

In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6481/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- Vs Vivitarelan, Tax, Circle -54(1), New Delhi. C-121, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Pan: Ajcpr2578R & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- Vivitarelan, C-121, Defence Colony, Tax, Circle -54(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Ajcpr2578R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…of AY 2012-13. 16. We have gone through the order dated 23.8.18 in ITA No.4106/Del/2015. In identical factual matrix, a coordinate bench of this tribunal in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Avinash Jai, 362 ITR 441 (Del) and CIT vs CNB Finwiz Ltd., 369 ITR 228 (Del) held that the law on this aspect is fairly settled and in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to treat the impugned receipt as income from capital gains and not as business income. In view of the consistent view on this aspect i.e. the view taken…

Ms Vivita Relan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5626/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- Vs Vivitarelan, Tax, Circle -54(1), New Delhi. C-121, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Pan: Ajcpr2578R & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- Vivitarelan, C-121, Defence Colony, Tax, Circle -54(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Ajcpr2578R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…of AY 2012-13. 16. We have gone through the order dated 23.8.18 in ITA No.4106/Del/2015. In identical factual matrix, a coordinate bench of this tribunal in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Avinash Jai, 362 ITR 441 (Del) and CIT vs CNB Finwiz Ltd., 369 ITR 228 (Del) held that the law on this aspect is fairly settled and in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to treat the impugned receipt as income from capital gains and not as business income. In view of the consistent view on this aspect i.e. the view taken…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vivita Relan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is

ITA 4106/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 14A

…me has to be assessed as business income. We find that the issue is no longer res integra. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Avinash Jain reported in 362 ITR 441 (Del). The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court are reproduced as under:- “Before us the Ld. Counsel for the revenue submitted that while the CBDT circular only mentioned that it was “possible” for a tax payer to have two portfolios, namely, an investment portfolio and a trading portfolio, the Tribunal has misunderstood the sai…

Ms. Vivita Relan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is

ITA 2248/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 14A

…me has to be assessed as business income. We find that the issue is no longer res integra. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Avinash Jain reported in 362 ITR 441 (Del). The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court are reproduced as under:- “Before us the Ld. Counsel for the revenue submitted that while the CBDT circular only mentioned that it was “possible” for a tax payer to have two portfolios, namely, an investment portfolio and a trading portfolio, the Tribunal has misunderstood the sai…

Second Leasing Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1565/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…long term capital gain held for more than 12 months has been put to dispute and has been taxed under the business head. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee in support of his contention has placed the reliance on the following decisions:- • CIT vs Avinash [2014] 362 ITR 441 (Del) • Vesta Investments & Trading Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 70 ITD 200 (Chd) • CIT vs. Girish Mohan Ganeriwala (2003) ITR 417 (P&H). 4.1 On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that AO was justified in taxing the capital gain as business income. It was further submitted that principle of res judicata are not applicable to income tax proceed…

ITO- (Internation Taxation), Nagpur vs. Smt. Urmila Sharan Rampal, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 63/NAG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 54F

…ares and accretions thereon by way of dilution of equity as an investment only. The AR has placed reliance on the following judgements: Reliance placed on : > CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bombay HC) > CIT v Consolidated Finvest and Holding Ltd. (2011) 337 ITR 264 (Delhi) 10.0 Keeping in view of the submissions of the AR of the appellant and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai cited supra, the transactions in shares are treated as investment in shares. 10.1 The Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench, in the case of Ms. Nishi Rampal, daughter of the appellant as cited supra has quashed the order passed u…

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

…IT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) " CIT Vs Rohit Anand (2010) 327 ITR 445 (Del) " CIT-IV Vs Devasan Investment (P.) Ltd. (2015) 229 Taxman 496 (SC) " CIT-IV Vs Devasan Investment (P.) Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 452 (Del) " CIT Vs Consolidated Finvest and Holding Ltd. (2011) 337 ITR 264 (Del.) 14. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, the only controversy to be resolved is as to whether the surplus received by the assessee on the sale of shares was a Shot Term Capital Gain or a business profit. In the instant case, the purchase…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…L-233-ITAT- KOL xiii. ACIT vs. Naishadh v. Vachharajani: I.T.A. No. 6429/Mum/2009 (Mum. Tri.) affirmed by the Bombay High Court in ITA No.1042 of 2011. xiv. Amit Jain v. ACIT: ITA No. 309/D/2010 (Del Tri.) xv. CIT v Consolidated Finvest and Holding Ltd (2011) 337 ITR 264 (Delhi) xvi. CIT v. Suresh R. Shah: ITA No. 1974/2011 (Bom.)(HC) m) That apart, it would be noted, that out of the total income earned from mutual funds, almost 49.67% of the total income earned from investments made in mutual funds was for a period of more than one year. It is submitted, that an investment held for a period of more than one yea…

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

…ced 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 assessee’s income on the shares has been treated as Short Term Capital Ga…

D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S A.K.G Finvest Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1341/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 73

…done through recognised stock exchange and were subjected to STT. The appellant in the written submission relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit 228 ITR 582 (Bombay) and the case of CIT Vs. Consolidated Invest Holding Ltd. 337 ITR 264 Delhi High Court to support his contention the purchase of shares of OBC was in nature of investment rather than in nature of business and explained that the shares were sold as the prices started declining and the appellant wanted to stop its loss. There were no intraday transactions. The appellant had claimed short term capital gains on the inv…

CIT v. Consolidated Finvest (337 ITR 264) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax