CIT v. Enam Securities Private Ltd.

345 ITR 64High Court2012#7880 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)sundry creditors disallowance u/s 14a section 14a income from other sources transfer opportunity of being heard person company section 14 total income business

Judgments citing CIT v. Enam Securities Private Ltd.

INDEX LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

ITA 4641/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

…issued by AO was duly served upon the creditor. Hence,\nprovisions of Section 41(1) will not apply.\n41. On this proposition we draw strength from the decision in\nthe case CIT v. Enam Securities (P.) Ltd. reported in [2012] 21\ntaxmann.com 267/208 Taxman 54/345 ITR 64 (Bombay),\nwherein, it was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court that,\n\"Whether since there was no remission or cessation of liability in\nquestion during current assessment year, addition made by\nAssessing Officer was to be deleted.\" Also, in the case of Sugauli\nSugar Works Pvt Ltd reported in [[1999] 102 Тахтап\n713/236 ITR 518 (SC)), Hon'ble A…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2550/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 45

…g/2019 Page 7 of 31 Genres. Deep Discounting Bonds and Debentures are liabilities to the recipient, whereas Redeemable Preference Shares are part of Capital. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Enam Securities 345 ITR 64, wherein the High Court held that Preference Shares are different from Bonds and Debentures and being Capital in nature is eligible to benefit of indexation. 6. The assessee, submitted that the alternate case made out by the AO, by applying the provisions of Sec.14A of the act, cannot be sustained because, the premium on redemption is exigible to…

M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(4), BANGLAOORE

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

ITA 2332/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 45

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ACQUIRE SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3192/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. M/S. Acquire Services Pvt. Circle – 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi Ground Floor, Central Wing, 124, Janpath Thapar House, Janpath Pan No. Aaacg 3351 K New Delhi-110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Shri Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) DCIT Vs. M/s. Acquire Services Pvt. Circle – 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi Ground Floor, Central Wing, 124, Janpath Thapar House, Janpath PAN No. AAACG 3351 K New Delhi-110 001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue by Shri Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 06.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 27.01…

THE DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4345/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2003-2004

Bench: Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Range 7(3)(2), (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Limited

Section 143(3)

…of indexation statutorily provided in the Act to the assessee. Hence, the same cannot be denied to the assessee. We find that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Enam M/s. Piramal Enterprises Limited Securities Pvt. Ltd., reported in 345 ITR 64 had an occasion to look into the similar issue on allowability of long term capital losses arising due to indexation at the time of redemption of preference shares. In the said case before the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court, the transactions were carried out with related parties, whereas in the instant case before us, the transactions were carried out…

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA/684/2015HC Karnataka01 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 2Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 35D

…nds are shown as under: - 10 - “[a] Conversion of the bonds into equity shares at the option of the bond holders at any time after 18th April 2007” 12. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax- 4 V/s. Enam Securities [P.] Ltd., [(2012) 345 ITR 64 (Bom.)], Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that there is a clear distinction between the bonds and debentures on the one hand, and preference share capital on the other. It has been observed that a bond includes “any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another on the condition that the obligation shall be void if…

KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1831/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 14Section 14A

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1831/PUN/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Kirloskar Oil Engines Limited, Laxmanrao Kirloskar Road, Khadki, Pune – 411003 PAN : AAACP3590P .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 9, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1919/PUN/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Assi…

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2) CEN RG 4, MUMBAI vs. ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5616/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner M/S Alliance Finstock Ltd. Of Income Tax Central G-1, Court Chambers, Vs. Circle-4(2), Mumbai Ground Floor, V. Thakersay Central Range-4 Pr. Marg, 35, New Marine Cit(C)-2 Mumbai Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadca9058Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 53/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Alliance Finstock Ltd. Deputy Commissioner G-1, Court Chambers, Of Income Tax Central Vs. Ground Floor, V. Thakersay Circle-4(2), Mumbai Marg, 35, New Marine Central Range-4 Pr. Lines, Mumbai-400020. Cit(C)-2 Mumbai Pan No. Aadca9058Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Assessee By : Ms. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner M/s Alliance Finstock Ltd. of Income Tax Central G-1, Court Chambers, Vs. Circle-4(2), Mumbai Ground floor, V. Thakersay Central Range-4 Pr. Marg, 35, New Marine CIT(C)-2 Mumbai Lines, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AADCA9058Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 53/MUM/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Alliance Finstock Ltd. Deputy Commissioner G-1, Court Chambers, of Income Tax Central Vs. Ground floor, V. Thakersay Circle-4(2), Mumb…

KAMSHET INVESTMENTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1248/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Kamshet Investments P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer The Enclave, New Prabhadevi Road Ward - 6(2)(4) Vs. Behind Marathe Udgyog Bhavan Mumbai Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025 Pan – Aaack2207N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member M/s. Kamshet Investments P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer The Enclave, New Prabhadevi Road Ward - 6(2)(4) Vs. Behind Marathe Udgyog Bhavan Mumbai Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025 PAN – AAACK2207N Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Hiro Rai Respondent by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date of Hearing: 10.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 24.01.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-12, Mumbai dated 13.12.2012 for A.Y.…

ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED INVETMENTS & LOANS (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2908/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2792/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Standard Chartered Investments & Additional Commissioner Of Loans (India) Limited Income Tax 1(3) बनाम/ (Cin U65990Mh2003Plc142829) Aaykar Bhavan Oriental Building Vs. M.K. Road 364, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-3462-N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2908/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Joint Commissioner Of Income Standard Chartered Investments & Loans (India) Limited Tax 1(3) Osd बनाम/ Oriental Building Aaykar Bhavan Vs. 364, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-3462-N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Sanjiv M. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Naveen Gupta, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

…, which was never possible. These shares could never fetch interest income but only dividend income and there was clear distinction between the terms ‘debt’ and ‘capital’ as per observation of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Enam Securities Private Ltd. [345 ITR 64]. The dividend was never declared by the issuer and therefore, from this angle also, no right to receive dividend accrued in favor of assessee at any time during impugned AY and the assessee was bound to pay taxes on its real income only. More so, entries / treatment in books of accounts were not conclusive to determine the taxable event. 16. Per…

STANDARD CHARTERED INVESTMENTS & LOANS (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T. -1(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2792/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Sanjiv M. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Naveen Gupta, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

GAURAV TRIYUGI SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 24(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6160/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri Gaurav Triyugi Singh Income Tax Officer-24(3)(1), (Proprietor Of M/S Cynosure C-11, 7Th Floor, Innovation) फनधभ/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 3005-A, Oberoi Woods, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Mohan Gokhale Marg, Bandra (E), Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400063 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Ansps7810B (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Dharam Gnandhi and Shri Nimesh ChothaniFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla

Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 41(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Shri Gaurav Triyugi Singh Income Tax Officer-24(3)(1), (Proprietor of M/s Cynosure C-11, 7th floor, Innovation) फनधभ/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 3005-A, Oberoi Woods, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Mohan Gokhale Marg, Bandra (E), Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400063 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : स्थधमी रेखध सं./ PAN : ANSPS7810B (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Assessee by : Shri Dharam Gnandhi and Shri Nimesh…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MS. PIYA SINGH, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 2917/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. Ms. Piya Singh, 15, Aurangzeb Acit, Circle-47(1), 426, Mayur Bhavan, New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Apdps6582D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Rupesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing 03.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 29/03/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2006-07, Raising Following Grounds: “I) Deleting The Assessing Officer To Allow The Long Term Capital Loss & Thereby Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,09,90,799/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain On Sale Of Apartment: Ii) Concluding The Fact That The Assessee Incurred Capital Loss First In Point Of Time & Capital Gains Were Arrived At Much Later Date Not Considering That It Was Not Only On 01.03.2006 I.E. On The Date Of Sale That The Assessee Came To Know That She Was Going To Earn Profit On Her Investment In The Apartment Rather It Was Well Within Her Knowledge That The Value Of Investment In The Property Was Appreciating & As She Invested In The Property Only For The Purpose Of Earning Profit, The Sale Of Shares Seven Months Before

…he following case laws: (i) decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hede consultancy company private limited reported in 266 CTR 594. (ii) decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT versus Enam securities private limited reported in 345 ITR 64 (iii) decision of the Chennai bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT versus Parry and company limited in ITA No. 2139/Mds/2007 3.4 We have heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record including the decisions cited by the learned counsel of the assessee. 3.5 In the case of DCIT Vs. Parry and Company Limit…

ITO 4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDO SHARES & FINTRADE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the AO is dismissed

ITA 751/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40(1)Section 41(1)

…अिधकरण, ‘अई’ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “I” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.751/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax…