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 366,470 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, Circle - 31, Kolkata vs. Pradyumna Dalmia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1280/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr. Advocate &

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14A

…he ratio laid by AAR in 228 ITR 641 I hold that the gains derived on transfer of investments was assessable as capital gains and not as business profit. “ 4.10. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gopal Purohit reported in (2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom) and 228 CTR 582 (Bom) had considered the issue under consideration and held as under:- 4.3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book filed by the Learned AR ITA Nos. 1245 & 1280/Kol/2010-C-AM 19 Shri Pradyumna Dalmia before us. We find that the assessee has been engaging hi…

ITO, Ward - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lyons & Roses Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1148/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr. Advocate &

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the revenue had accepted the stand of the assessee having dual portfolio and offering income under capital gains and business income in subsequent years. 5.3.9. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gopal Purohit reported in (2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom) and 228 CTR 582 (Bom) had considered the issue under consideration and held as under:- 4.3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book filed by the Learned AR before us. We find that the assessee has been engaging himself in the share transactions both as an investor and as wel…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2863/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri MP Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Chandra Sharma, CIT- DR

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…0- ITAT-Delhi; v ) Ram Narain Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – 41 ITR 534 (S.C); vi) Karnataka State Ind. Investment & Dev. Corpn. Ltd. vs. DCIT – 59 ITD 643 (Bang,.); vii) CIT vs. Gopal Purohit – 2010-TIOL-129-S.C-MUM-IT; viii) CIT vs. Devasan Investment P. Ltd. - 365 ITR 452 (Del.); 14. Considering the above submission, we find that in its recent decision, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ashok Wadia (supra) has been pleased to hold that the legal standards concerning whether income is to be treated as business income or short term capital gain have been the subject matter of…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Jogani & Dialani Land Developers & Builders, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 337/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 112Section 143(3)

…the accounting entries and their relevance, following have been brought to my attention:- i) The Supreme Court vide order dated 15.11.2010 dismissed the Department's Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom) where it was held that entries in books of account have a bearing in determining the nature of income though not conclusive. ii) Ess Jay Enterprises (P) Ltd., 165 Taxman 465 (Delhi HC) - It was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the treatment given by the assessee in the books of accounts is of importance while determining whether th…

JCIT(OSD), Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. Tollygunge Estates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1694/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

…y considered the case laws relied upon in the assessment order and case laws relied upon by assessee in the written submission. The above factual matrix and the decision of Hon'ble ITAT – Gopal Purohit Vs. JCIT which has been confirmed by Bombay High Court in 228 CTR 582 and SLP has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The facts of the case are similar to the case of Gopal Purohit. Therefore, the AO is directed to treat the sale of shares and mutual funds as short term capital gains in accordance with IT Act, 1961 and tax accordingly. Therefore, assessee’s ground no. 1 & 2 are allowed.” Being aggrieved by th…

JCIT(OSD), Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. Tollygunge Estates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1693/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

Occasion Impex Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4867/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year- 2008-09 Occasion Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dcit(Osd)-8(1), C-612, Crystal Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Andheri New Link Road, Vs. Opposite Infinity Mall, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabfo3272H "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri A.K.Ghosh Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh- राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Dr

…fered gains from investment under the head capital gains and accepted by the Department for which our attention was invited to pages 6, 11, 17 & 18 and 25 of the paper book. Reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom.) and SLP of the Department, filed before Hon’ble Apex Court, was dismissed in 334 ITR (St.) 308. On the issue of frequency of transaction, it was contended that the assessee acquired shares only on four different dates which were transferred on 3 Occasion Impex Pvt. Ltd. ten different dates by arguing that the frequency of the transaction i…

DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Manoj N. Tekriwal, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5594/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 2008-09 Dy. Cit-24(2), Shri Manoj N. Tekriwal, C-13, 6Th Flr. B-504, Harishchandra Apts. बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Raheja Township, Malad(E), Vs. Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400097 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Abtpt8105D

Section 143(3)

…be called an investor as well as trader has 4 Shri Manoj N.Tekriwal been explained in Circular No.4 of 2007 (291 ITR (ST.)35). The case of the assessee further find supports from the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom.), which was taken in a appeal filed against the decision of the Tribunal in 29 SOT 117 (Mumb. Trib.) and Janak S. Rangwala vs ACT (11 SOT 627) (Mum.). Admittedly, there are various decisions available on the issue but there is no strait jacket formula, which can be said to be fitting to the case of the assessee. However, the frequency, volu…

DCIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Chhaya D. Parikh, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant on this issue

ITA 346/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit- 16(3), Smt. Chhaya D. Parikh, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 1808, Panchratna, Opera House, R.No. 206, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400004 Vs. Mumbai-400007 Pan: Aagpp2633Q

For Respondent: Shri Satyapal Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)

…s, and for the sake of brevity, even though they are taken into consideration for arriving at the conclusion that the appellant, is an investor, the same are not reproduced. However to name a few Janak S. Rangwalla vs. ACIT (11 SOT 627), CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom.)(2010), CIT Vs. Rohit Anand (2010) 327 ITR 445(Del),DCIT Vs. SMK Shares & Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 799/Mum/2009,Vinod K. Nevatia ITA No. 6556/Mum/2009 & 181/Mum/2010 and Naishadh V. Vachharajani ITA No. 6429/Mum/2009. 10. In view of the detailed discussion of the facts and considering the legal position the back ground of the amended…

Dhairesh K Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2933/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2933/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Shri Dhairesh K Sangvi, The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 12(3), 3Rd Floor, Union –Co-Op.Inse Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Building, M K Road, P M Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…t of few shares only and the said transactions are also very few. Accordingly he submitted that the consistency in the treatment of the gains arising on sale of shares should be maintained as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (228 CTR 582). 3 He further submitted that the assessee had declared the shares as his investment in the immediately preceding year, i.e., on 31.3.2007 and the AO has also accepted the same. Hence the gains arising on sale of such shares should be assessed as capital gains only. 5. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has been purchasing…

Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-34(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1366/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07 (Appellant ) (Respondent) Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-34(1) Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Adppa 1393 J) For The Appellant : Ms.Varsha Jalan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri D.Banerjee, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2015.. Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No. 270/Cit(A)-Xx/Wd-34(1)/2008-09 Dated 02.07.2012 For The Asst Year 2006-07 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Ms.Varsha Jalan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.Banerjee, JCIT

Section 143(3)

…ly proves the intention of the assessee that he is only interested in share market only as an investor and not otherwise. We find that this issue has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gopal Purohit reported in 228 CTR 582 (Bom) , wherein the questions raised before the 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 7,59,003 shares for Rs.5,00,12,879/- as an income from short term capital gain and sale of 3,88,797 s…

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT

Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी च"ला नागे"" "साद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012) Shriram Capital Limited, The Deputy Commissioner of Mookambika Complex, Vs Income Tax, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Corporate Circle 6 (1), Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [PAN:AABCS 2726B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appella…

Shriram Capital Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 512/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT

Section 14A

CIT vs. M/S Escorts Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 14 / 1999HC Delhi01 Feb 2011

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R.M. Mehta, Advocate

Section 260ASection 263Section 80

…seeks to exercise revisional jurisdiction qua the assessee. 11. In addition we wish to refer to two more judgments. The first one being a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case entitled CIT vs Gopal Purohit (2010) 2011:DHC:591-DB ITA 14/1999 228 CTR 582. This case is referred to since it dealt with transactions somewhat similar to the one we are grappling with. The other being: a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 11.1 In Gopal Purohit (supra) case the Bombay High Court was called upon to decide whether the approach adopted by the Tribunal in holding the revenue to the view…