How many judgments cite CIT v. Gopal Purohit?

254 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gopal Purohit (336 ITR 287), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gopal Purohit come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(38), Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 68, Section 10(34), Section 131.

CIT v. Gopal Purohit

336 ITR 287High Court2011#334 most cited

What is CIT v. Gopal Purohit authority for?

The gain from delivery-based share transactions, where shares are consistently treated as investments and valued at cost in the books, is assessable as capital gains and not business income. An assessee's consistent stand on classifying share transactions should generally be followed by the assessing officer in subsequent years.

254

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gopal Purohit · Section 10(38) · Section 14A · Section 143(3) · share transactions · capital gains · business income · investment or stock-in-trade · consistency · Supreme Court SLP dismissed

Also reported as

228 CTR 582188 Taxmann 14034 DTR 52

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 68 Section 10(34)Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

long term capital gain section 14a section 10 previous year transfer company section 143 business india prescribed section 143(3)total income

Judgments citing CIT v. Gopal Purohit

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3541/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…se Shri Mohan K.Jain, Mumbai 29 I.T.A.No. 1033 & 748/Mum/2010 A.Y.2006-07 of S.M.K. Shares and Stock Broking Private Limited, I.T.A.No.799/Mum/09 order dated 24.11.2010. For this proposition, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582, is very much relevant and important. From the record, we found that assessee was investing in shares as well as trading in shares. He has maintained two portfolios of share transactions i.e delivery based share transactions and non-delivery based share transactions. The non-delivery based share transactions were in respect of F&O and intra-day s…

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

…t price as capital assets. The transactions done are also not regular and sUbstantia0"he judgment and the Board circular relied upon by the AO rather supports the case of the appellant. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit (2011) 336 ITR 287 held that "Assessee is engaged in two different types of transactions namely, investment in shares and dealing in shares for the purposes of business and held that the delivery based transactions are to be treated as investment transactions and the profit received therefrom is to be treated as short term or long term capital gain depending on the…

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

…ned in its circular that it is possible for a tax payer to have two portfolios i.e. an investment portfolio and trading portfolio. This view has also been fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gopal Purohit – 336 ITR 287. 9. The assessee had opening investment at Rs. 4,01,49,296/- and the investment as on 31.3.2007 was at Rs. 3,97,99,072/-. This clearly shows 5 ITA No.1074/M/2011 that the assessee had brought forward investment in shares. The borrowed capital of Rs. 1,36,23,246/- has come down to Rs. 2,396/- at the close of the current financial year. The allegat…

ITO 19(3), Mumbai vs. Shrenik Nalin Zaveri, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby

ITA 142/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.142/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shri Shrenik Nalin Zaveri Income Tax 19(3) 54, Dreamland Bldg., Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 5Th Floor, M.P.Road, Mumbai - 400007 Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapz1721B

For Appellant: Shri Vijay R. AsharFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘सी’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी आर. सी. शमा", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.142/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner of बनाम/ Shri Shrenik Nalin Zaveri Income Tax 19(3) 54, Dreamland Bldg., Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 5th Floor, M.P.Road, Mumbai - 400007 Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAPZ1721B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vijay R. Asha…

DCIT, Cir-11, Kolkata vs. M/S Machino Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 312/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…e is dealing in shares and held as investment in shares which holding is not disputed by the AO, in so far as, the shares were held for more than one year was acceptable to it. This was considered in the case of CIT vs Gopal Purohit by ITAT Mumbai reported in 228 CTR 582. Similarly in the case of CIT vs R.K.Dhawan reported in 208 Taxation 393 it was held that having found that the assessee had sold the shares which was held by it as investment cannot be treated as stock-in-trade, unilaterally by the AO to be rendering income from business. Coming closer to the Tribunal decisions at Kolkata the ld.counsel had reli…

Mehraboon J Irani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7226/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7226/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Mehraboon J. Irani Asst. Cit, Circle 24(1), बनाम/ Bldg. No. 9B, Flat No. 503, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Behram Baug Parsi Colony, Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpi 2187 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Unadkat ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Ravichandran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 30.08.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Cit(A)/34/It- 279/08-09 Dated 13.08.2009, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 26.12.2008. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The A.O. In Treating The Gain Arising Out Of The Sale & Purchase Of Shares As ‘Business Income’ Instead Of ‘Long Term Capital Gain’ (Ltcg) Or ‘Short Term

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang UnadkatFor Respondent: Shri S. Ravichandran

Section 143(3)

…s incurred in main scrip traded during the year and it has maintained books of accounts. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee all these factors were considered by various courts and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohi (2010) 336 ITR 287 (Bom) has considered this aspect and held in favour of the assessee. The ld. Counsel by the assessee also argued that more volume of transaction transacted by the assessee would not alter the nature of the transaction and head of income is to be determined with regard to the facts relating to the transactions. The ld. Counsel for the assessee exp…

Meena Kothari, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5350/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Sh. Mahavir Singh,Jm & B.R. Baskaran,Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No./5350/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Meena Kothari Addl Cit-Circle-16(1) Gold Cornet, Flat No.4, 1St Floor, Mumbai. 11 Nawrojee Gamadia Road Mumbai-400 026. Vs. Pan:Aabpk 6030 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Vinita Menon Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S 254(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(The Act) O R D E R "याियक सद"य के अनुसार Per Mahavir Singh,Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)-27, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)27/Addl.Cit16(1)/220/07-08 Order Dated 03.03.2011. Assessment Was Framed By Acit,Cir.16(1) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2005-06 Vide His Order Dated 30.11.2007. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) In Treating The Short Term Capital

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Menon

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…assessment was made by Revenue under section 143(3) of the Act and the STCG declared by the assessee out of the same scrip i.e. Munjal Auto was accepted as it is. On similar facts, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (2010) 336 ITR 287 (Bom) has held as under:- “2. The Tribunal has entered a pure finding of fact that the assessee was engaged in two different types of transactions. The first set of transactions involved investment in shares. The second set of transactions involved dealing in shares for the purposes of business (described in paragraph 8.3 of the judgment of the…

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Madhuri Doot, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for the A

ITA 5546/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5545 & 5546/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) The Ito - 3(1)(2), Vs. Smt. Madhuri R. Dhoot Room No. 666/668-A, 4B, 1L, Palazzo, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Little Gibbs Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Malabar Hill, Mumbai- 400 006. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpd1056E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M.SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri. K.V.Vispute

…11(supra) for the A.Y. 2008-09. The relevant portion of order reads as under:- “4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Gopal Purohit [(2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.)] has emphasized on the principle of consistency. In this case the Hon’ble High Court, dealing with similar issue, held that: “there ought to be uniformity in treatment and consistency when the facts and circumstances are identical”. As income from sale of shares has been consistently accepted as short term / long term capital gain in prece…

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Madhuri Dhoot, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for the A

ITA 5545/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. M.SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri. K.V.Vispute

Trent Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1162/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/1162/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Trent Ltd., Dcit-Range-2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai. Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaacl 1838 J आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/1725/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 वष" Dcit-Range-2(3) Trent Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:24.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 06/12/2010 Of The Cit (A)-6,Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed The Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Retailing For Ready- Made Garments Etc.Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 27.10.2005,Declaring Total Income At Rs. 12.75 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3)Of The Act, On 05.10.2007,Determining Its Income At Rs. Nil,After Setting Off Loss Of The Earlier Years.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sathya Moorthy-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23Section 24Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/1162/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Trent Ltd., DCIT-Range-2(3) Bombay House, 2nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai. Mumbai-400 0…

Atul A Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 975/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2007-08 is allowed

ITA 975/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “A” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 975/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Atul A Shah, Assistant Commissioner of बनाम/ F-1001, Shanti Appt., Income Tax- 25 (3),Bandra v. Off Atul Towers, Mumbai. Mathurdas Road, Kandivali, Mumbai – 400067. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AACPS9190F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rahul K. Hakani Revenue by : Shri Aarsi Prasad सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 07-06-201…

A.C.I.T.19(2), Mumbai vs. Alka Kiritkumar Upadhyay, Mumbai

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

ITA 2617/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2617/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) A.C.I.T. – 19(2), Smt. Alka Kiritkumar बनाम/ Room No. 315, 3 Rd Floor, Upadhyay, V. Piramal Chambers, Alka Bldg., 6T H Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai –400 054. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaapu0228Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…r in favour of the assessee by treating the capital gain on sale of shares as capital gains and not as business income as per the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gopal ITA 2617/Mum/2012 3 Purohit reported in (2011) 336 ITR 287(Bom.).It was submitted that investments have been made out of own funds and there were no borrowings. The assessee further submitted that the number of transactions were very less as compared to her networth and the deliveries of the shares were generally taken and the same were reflected in the books of account at the yearend as Investment and t…

Shree Padmasagar Exports Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 5, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1125/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Years:2008-09 Shree Padmasagar Exports Deputy Commissioner बनाम / Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 2 of Income Tax, V/s. Block-F, 2nd Floor, Mehta Circle-5, Ayakar Building, 55, B.R.B. Basu Bhawan, P-7, Road, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [PAN No. AAECS 4645 D] Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K.Chakraborty, JCIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-07-2016 सुनवाई क"…

Pankaj K. Dharia, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5142/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Pankaj K. Dharia Vs. Ito 16(1)(1) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 10 C Sett Minar 16 A.G. Deshmukh Marg Tardeo Road Mumbai- 400026 Mumbai- 400007 Pan No. Aabpd6642C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri. G.P. Mehta Respondent By : Ms. Bharti Singh

For Appellant: Shri. G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Pankaj K. dharia Vs. ITO 16(1)(1) 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir 10 C Sett Minar 16 A.G. Deshmukh Marg Tardeo Road Mumbai- 400026 Mumbai- 400007 PAN No. AABPD6642C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. G.P. Mehta Respondent By : Ms. Bharti Singh Date of Hearing : 28/07/2016 Date of pronouncement : 10/08/2016 O R D ER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM : This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of Ld. CIT(A)-27, Mumbai in Appe…

M/S. Loknath Saraf Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 6, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 418/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A & A.K. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aroop Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

…onsistent stand taken in the earlier years accepting the stand of the assessee having dual portfolio and offering income under capital gains and business income. 5.16. We find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit reported in (2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom) had considered the issue under consideration wherein the questions raised before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and decision rendered thereon are as below:- (a) “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in treating the income from sale of 759003 shares for Rs.5,00,12,879/- as an income f…

DCIT, Circle - 6 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Lokenath Saraf Securities Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 300/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A & A.K. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aroop Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

DCIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5254/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Pawan Singh (Jm)

…earlier years. Hence, under the principle of consistency, the claim of the assessee should be accepted. In this regard, the Ld CIT(A) has taken support of the decisions rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit (336 ITR 287), Aroni Chemicals Ltd Vs. DCIT (362 ITR 403) and the decision rendered in other cases, viz., ACIT Vs. Shri Satpal Singh Sethi (ITA No.3650/Mum/2010) and M/s SMK Shares & Stock Broking pvt Ltd (ITA No.799/Mum/2009 dated 24.12.2010). (n) In support of Principles of Consistency, the Ld CIT(A) has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme…

Jaswant A. Parikh (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the Revenue, both are dismissed

ITA 2495/MUM/2014[2000-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2000-11

Bench: Sri G. S. Pannu & Sri Sanjay Gargjasvant A. Parikh (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(3) (1), 1St Floor, Matru 512-A, Pancharatana, 14, Mama Parmanand Marg, Mandir, Tradeo Road, Mumbai Opera House, Mumbai 400004 400 007 Pan:Aabhj 8785 Q Appellant .. Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward Vs. Jasvant A. Parikh (Huf), 16(3) (1), 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, 512-A, Pancharatana, 14, Tradeo Road, Mumbai 400 007 Mama Parmanand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai 400004 Pan:Aabhj 8785 Q Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal, Dr Assessee By: Shri Apurva R. Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing: 28-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 20-07-2016

For Appellant: Shri Apurva R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal, DR

…t the intention of the assessee was that of an investor. All the share transactions were on delivery basis and there was no speculative trading. He, therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit reported in 336 ITR 287 (Bom) wherein it has been held that the facts and circumstances being identical in the subsequent assessment year, the Department should maintain rule of consistency in its approach regarding treatment of income from the same activity. He in this respect also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs…

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

…r treatment is given to a particular scrip. So far as frequency of sales is concerned the assessee finds support from the decision of in the case of Ashok Wadia 45 taxmann.com 182 (Del.) and the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582. The learned CIT(A) has deliberated upon the issue with respect to magnitude of purchase and sale of shares, dividend income in relation to holdings. It is a well settled principle that the total turnover and the frequency of sale is not the sole indicator to prove that the assessee is trader in shares. It has been well 5 Smt. Laxmi M. Chaturved…

Ramesh Phootermal Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 18(3), Mumbai

ITA 4232/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…see has been accepted as such albeit no assessment has been made u/s 143(3) by the AO. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Dilip V Variya dt 09-01-2013 in I.T.A. No.1088 of 2011 and CIT vs Gopal Purohit 336 ITR 287 (Bom). 3 I.T.A. No.5160 /Mum/2013 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR merely submitted that since assessee had large volume of transactions, his income should be assessed under the head ‘Income from business’ and principles of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. 6. We have gone through the facts of the case, heard both the parties and…