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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ganesha Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals preferred by the revenue stand

ITA 1747/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal CA

Section 10(38)Section 112(1)Section 44A

…1 ITA 1563/D/2010; 1279 & 1747/Del/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI: JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA nos. 1563/Del/2010 (AY: 2005-06) 1279/Del/2011 (AY: 2006-07) 1747/Del/2011 (AY 2007-08) DCIT Circle 12(1), Vs. Ganesha Securities (P) Ltd., New Delhi. D-6/17, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.. PAN: AAACG 2464 R ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Agrawal CA Date of hearing : 23/06/2016. Date of order : 30/06/20126. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M: These are revenue…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ganesha Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals preferred by the revenue stand

ITA 1279/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal CA

Section 10(38)Section 112(1)Section 44A

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ganesha Securities (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals preferred by the revenue stand

ITA 1563/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal CA

Section 10(38)Section 112(1)Section 44A

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Jagdish Master HUF, Mumbai

ITA 7122/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit – 25(2), Shri Jagdish Master, Huf 6Th Floor, C-10, 14, Laxmi Niwas, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. Church Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vile Parle (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 056 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aachj 5352E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Manish Desai, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Jeevan Lal, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Manish Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal, D.R

Section 143(3)

…bout the ‘Head’ of such income but may deprive the assessee from claiming set off of capital losses of a previous year in the subsequent year because of change of Head of such income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Gopal Purohit” (2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) has held that though principle of resadjudicata is not applicable to income tax proceedings, as each year is a separate year, however, the principle of consistency is to be followed, if there is no change in fact and circumstances in the subsequent year. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue and th…

Vahanvati Consultants P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8700/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 8700/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / / / / Assessment Year: 2008-09) वष" M/S Vahanvati Consultants P Ltd Dcit 2(3) बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 3Rd Floor, Crescent Chambers, 56 Room No.555, 5Th Floor, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Mumbai-400 023. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv0361M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Manish V Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthill Kumaran सुनवाई क" तारीख / : 08/06/2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख / : 29.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.09.2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6, [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. “Inappropriateness Of Confirming Additions That The Ao Made By Treating Short Term Capital Gain As Business Income. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Confirming Addition That The Ao Had Made By Treating The Short Term Capital Gain As Business Income.

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthill Kumaran

Section 14A

…bout the ‘Head’ of such income but may deprive the assessee from claiming set off of capital losses of a previous year in the subsequent year because of change of Head of such income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Gopal Purohit” (2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) has held that though principle of resadjudicata is not applicable to income tax proceedings, as each year is a separate year, however, the principle of consistency is to be followed, if there is no change in fact and circumstances in the subsequent year. So far as the contention of the Department that borrowed funds were used for investmen…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. Trisys on the Net Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1547/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)

…Rs.1.54 lakhs on these hares and mutual funds and assessee has also been subjected to STT on these transactions. I have also carefully considered the judgment of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Gopal Purohit which has been confirmed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 228 CTR 582 (Bom) and SLP filed by Dept. has also been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The facts of the case under consideration are similar to the facts in the case of Gopal Purohit therefore, the AO is directed to treat profits on sale of shares as capital gains and accordingly he is directed to compute tax on capital gains in accordance with IT Act…

Darshana B. Doshi, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Circle 13(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 5462/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Darshana B. Doshi Acit, Circle-13(3), 31, Broach Street, Devraj 430, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th बनाम/ Ratanshi Marg, Iron Market, Floor, M.K. Marg, Vs. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai 400 020. Mumbai 400009. Pan. No. Aabpd7806Q (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 10(34)

…ich was allowed to be carried forward by the department. On the rule of consistency reliance was placed upon the decisions in Gopal Purohit vs. 3 Smt. Darshana B. Doshi JCIT (2009) 29 SOT 117 (Mum) (which was affirmed by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in 336 ITR 287 (Bom) and SLP was dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2011) 334 ITR (St.) 308 (SC)), Shantilal Jain vs. ACIT (2011) 132 ITD 466 (Mum), Dharmesh R. Shah vs. JCIT (2013) 60 SOT 182 (Mum), Kunverji Nanji Kenia vs. Addl. CIT (2010) 131 TTJ 87 (Mum) and another decision from Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in CIT vs. Naishadh V. Vachharajani (ITA No…

Sarosh Boman Shroff, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1271/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1271/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mr. Santosh Boman Shroff, The Asstt. Commissioner बनाम/ 53, Hassa Mahal, Of Income Tax – 12 (2), V. Dalamal Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 006. Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Amjps0056M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (D.R.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ishadh V. Vachharajani in ITA No. 6429/Mum/2209 dated 25th February, 2011 which is affirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA(L) No.1042 of 2011 dated 22-09-2011 , and also the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gopal Purohit (2010) 228 CTR 582(Bom.). The ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of ITAT in the case of Nagindas P. Sheth (HUF) v. ACIT in ITA No. 961/Mum/2010 dated 5th April, 2011 and in the case of Shri Ramesh Babu Rao v. ACIT in ITA No. 3719/Mum/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06 dated 13th April, 2011 and contended that the assessee has entered into…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Decent Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2442/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2442/Del/2011 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

Section 10(38)Section 111Section 14ASection 2Section 88

…DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-2442/DEL/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) ACIT vs Decent Financial Services Pvt. Circle-10(1) Ltd. New Delhi 84, (APPELLANT) Darya Ganj New Delhi AAACD2899P (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Ms. Anima Baranwal, SR. DR Respondent by Sh. Ved Jain, ADV Date of Hearing 15.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement 19.05.2016 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 28/02/2011 passed by CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the f…

ITO 9(2)-3, Mumbai vs. Modlite Holdings P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7927/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarthe I.T.O 9(2)(3) Room No.225, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400020 ... Appellant Vs. M/S. Modlite Holdings Pvt. Ltd. B-304, Makani Centre-Ii, Behind National College, 35Th Road, Khar(W), Mumbai 400052 Pan: Aaacm 4435A .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Premand J. Respondent By : None

For Appellant: Shri Premand JFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 68

…mplete statement of income also details of transactions of shares and loans taken and also utilization of loan. In such circumstances we are of the view that in the present case the ratio of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs.Gopal Purohit,(2011) 336 ITR 287(Bom) has laid down the principal as follows:- a) The Tribunal has correctly applied the principle of law in accepting the position that it is open to an assessee to maintain two separate portfolios, one relating to investment in shares and another relating to business activities involving dealing in shares. Delivery based transactions were right…

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)

…r of the assessee by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) which has been confirmed by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the Revenue. That apart, reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Gopal Purohit, [2011] 228 CTR 582 (Bom.), besides other ITA No.5310/Mum/2010 & C.O. No.227/Mum/2014 Shri Chetan K. Mehta various Tribunal decisions. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), following the earlier years’ precedence right from the assessment year 2005–06 to 2007–08, has decided this issue in favour of the assessee after applying the rule of consistency. Besides this, th…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 D.C.I.T., Circle-6, -vs.- M/s. K.B.Capital Markets Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AABCK1174F) (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1726/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/s. K.B.Capital Markets(P)Ltd. -vs- D.C.I.T., Circle-6, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AABCK1174F) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Department : Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR For the Assessee : Shri D.S.Damle, FCA Date of Hearing : 09.…

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)

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)

…as preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned DR relied on the order of the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A) and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom). 9. We have considered the rival submissions. The issue to be decided is as to whether the STCG on transaction of purchase and sale of units of mutual funds and shares undertaken by the assessee during the previous year is to be assessed under the head ‘income from business’ as claimed by the revenue or income under the head ‘capital gain’…

Late Shri Lalchand S. Rohra, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 14(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7999/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Joginder Singhlate Shri Lalchand S. Rohra, By Legal Heir : Mrs. Beena Sachev, 101-A, Embassy Apartments, 46, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 026 Pan:Aaspr 0251L ... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…saction is the accounts maintained by the assessee. It is further held that delivery based transactions should be treated as investment transactions. The said finding of 7 the Tribunal has been upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the above case reported at 228 CTR 582(Bom), and the appeal filed by the department against said decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court was also rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.11.2010. Further, in the case of DCIT vs. SMK Sahres & Stock Broking Pvt Ltd., (I.T.A. No.799/M/2009) order dated 24.11.2010, ITAT Mumbai has held that mere volume of transactions is not th…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Nailesh P. Dalal, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6169/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-21(1), Shri Nailesh Dalal, 6Th Floor, C-10, 5-6, Viram, 62, बनाम/ Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Hatkesh Society, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, N. S. Road No.8, Bandra (East) Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400049 (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aacpd9844N Cross Objection No.49/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6169/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Nailesh Dalal, Acit-21(1), 5-6, Viram, 62, 6Th Floor, C-10, बनाम/ Hatkesh Society, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. N. S. Road No.8, Bandra Kurla Complex, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue ) Pan. No.Aacpd9844N

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, बी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"नी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT-21(1), Shri Nailesh Dalal, 6th Floor, C-10, 5-6, Viram, 62, बनाम/ Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Hatkesh Society, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, N. S. Road No.8, Bandra (East) JVPD Scheme, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400049 (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AACPD9844N Cross Objection No.49/Mum/2016 (Arising out of ITA NO.6169/Mum/…

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)

…preceding year. The ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Datta Mahendra Shah [2015] 378 ITR 304 (Bom.) and the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Devasan Investment P. Ltd. [2014] 365 ITR 452 (Delhi). 8. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has earned short term capital gain of Rs. 23.64 lacs and prime motive of the assessee is to earn profit and A.O. was correct in treating the gain as income from business. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the…

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)

…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 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 allegation of the Revenue au…

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

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘A’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] Assessment Year : 2005-06 I.T.O., Ward-12(4) , -versus- M/s. Manimaya Holdings Pvt.Ltd Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AACCM0598E) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri Sallong yaden, Addl.CIT,Sr.DR For the Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Date of Hearing : 08.03.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 6.4.2016. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 31.12.2008 of CIT(A) XXXII, Kolkata, relating to AY 2005-06. 2. Ground No.1 raised by the re…

Shri. K.T. Sanath, Bangalore vs. Addl..C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1185/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Yogesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)

…urchase and sale of shares. 8. He has further contended that so far as the transactions in the derivatives are concerned, the assessee is maintaining two portfolios and as per judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gopal Purohit v. JCIT, 336 ITR 287 (Bom), there is no bar for maintaining two portfolios by the assessee, one in trading activity and another in investment in shares. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that when all the transactions of purchase and sale of shares resulting in short term capital gain as well as long term capital gain are delivery based and same are held as investment i…