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

It0 25(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Minal Bharat Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5507/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5507/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Ito-25(3)(4) बिधम/ Minal Bharat Patel Room No. 603, C-10, 6Th 602, Boston House, Suren Vs. Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400093. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpp5126G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vasudev Ginde & Kumar Kale Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai Dated 16.07.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 31.07.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,36,740/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act. The Authorized Representative Appeared Before The Ao & Filed Details During The Assessment Proceedings. The Assessee Has Shown Short Term Capital Gain [Stcg] Of Rs.12,18,961/- & Long Term Capital Gain [Ltcg] Of Rs.17.01.85,391/- On Sale Of Shares. The Assessee Claimed Exemption U/S 10(38) Of The Act For The Entire Ltcg. Further, The Assessee Had Also Shown Ltcg Of Rs.1,00,31,538/- On Redemption

For Appellant: Shri Vasudev Ginde & Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…d fallen below the cost. We note that this accounting practice has been consistently followed by the assessee for several years and is a deciding factor in such matters as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT VS. Gopal Purohit (2011) 336 ITR 287 Mumbai. Considering the aforesaid facts as well as taking into 5 A.Y. 2013-14 Minal Bharat Patel consideration the CBDT Circular No.04/2007 dated 15.06.2007, we find that the assessee’s intention of buying and selling of shares was that of an investor and therefore, the action of the AO to treat the consideration from sale of shares to the tune…

The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Bharat C. Pathak, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1541/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. &

…ITA No.1541/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Shri Bharat C. Pathak, Circle - 2(2), Ahmedabad. 1, Shreepath Apartment, Opp. Swastik Society, St. Xavier School, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009. [PAN: ABNPP 5434 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT D.R. Respondent by : Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. & Shri Samir Vora, A.R. Date of hearing : 07.04.2022 Date of pron…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3), Pune vs. Subhash & B.T. Patil & Sons & N.V.Kharote Constructions Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1060/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ulhas KiniFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 40

…contended that this aspect has not been considered in the assessment order u/s.143(3) for A.Y. 2007-08. On the principle of consistency, the Ld. Authorised Representative relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (2010) 228 CTR 582 (Bom.) and assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) wherein it was observed that strictly speaking the principle of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings since each assessment year was a separate unit in itself and what is decided in one yea…

Cygnus Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 26Section 263

…nal Travel House Ltd., 194 Taxman 324; (ix) CIT Vs. DLF Power Ltd., 329 ITR 289(Del.); (x) CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd., 294 ITR 310 (De!.); (xi) CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal, 320 ITR 674 (Del.); (xii) CIT Vs. Rohit Anand, 327 ITR 445 (Del); (xiii)CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582(Bom.); (xiv) CIT Vs. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd, 236 CTR 1 (Delhi)”. 9. Per contra, ld. D.R. vehemently argued supporting the detailed finding of the ld. PCIT and the decisions relied therein. It is also contended that the Assessing Officer should have increased the scope of inquiry so as to examine the identity and creditworthiness of the sh…

DCIT(E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Nehru Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7461/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

For Appellant: Shri Dilip ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Dilipkumar Shah

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…cannot be allowed to flip-flop on the issue and it ought to let the matter rest rather than spend the tax payers’ money in pursuing litigation for the sake of it’. (iii) We further rely on the Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom) wherein it was held that “there should be uniformity in treatment and consistency when facts and circumstances are identical particularly in the case of the assesse”. (iv) The Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in the identical case of Shamukhanand Fine Arts and Sangeeta Sabha 1975/M/2016 & 6858/M/2016 (SH Trust) on top of para no. 6.2 held as…

The Bombay Oil Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-8 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 6856/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 57

…lated the principles of consistency. In this regard, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhoswamy Satsang (198 ITR 321), the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (336 ITR 287) and also other decisions. 4. The Ld A.R submitted that the rejection of the application for securing NBFC status would not render the assessee business less and the income derived by the assessee would not lose business character. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Preimus Investm…

Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2087/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…as been consistently held that if the shares have been held under the portfolio of investment which is separate from the shares then same cannot be 12 brought to tax under the head capital gain. Some of the judgments are as under: - 1. CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) [Also confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court] 2. CIT vs. Vinay Mittal, 208 taxman 106 (Del. HC) 3. ITO vs. Rohit Anand, (2009) 34 SOT 42 (Del.) 4. CIT vs. Amit Jain, 374 ITR 550 (Del.) 5. CIT vs. Sahara India Housing Corporation Ltd., ITA No.740/2009 (Del.) 18. In the light of the catena of decision Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and also…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 32(3), Mumbai vs. Sagar Construction, Mumbai

ITA 5270/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit 32(3) M/S Sagar Construction Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, Vs. C-402, Gokul Divine, Irla, S.V. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Road, Vile Parle (W), Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai - 400 056 Pan No. Aagfs8539N (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

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

…ITA No.5270/Mum/2019 A.Y.2012-13 1 ACIT 32(3) Vs. M/s Sagar Construction IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ACIT 32(3) M/s Sagar Construction Room No. 732, 7th Floor, Vs. C-402, Gokul Divine, Irla, S.V. Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Road, Vile Parle (W), Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai - 400 056 PAN No. AAGFS8539N (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R Revenue by : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date of pronouncement : 21/09/2021 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The p…

DCIT, CC- 8(1), Mumbai vs. Nirshilp Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6321/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6322/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year :2016-17) DCIT-CC-8(1) Vs. M/s.Nirshilp Securities Pvt. Ltd., Room No.656, 6th Floor 301-308, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Bhagwati House-A-19 M.K.Road, Mumbai Veera Desai Road Maharashtra-400 020 Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 058 Maharashtra PAN/GIR No.AABCN4361M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) DCIT-CC-8(1) Vs. M/s.Dolat Investment Ltd., Room No.656, 6th Floor 301-308, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Bhagwati House-A-19 M.K.Road, Mumbai Veera Desai Road Mah…

Shri Vipul S. Mehta Legal Heir of Suresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai

ITA 118/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

Section 54B

…assessment years in which assessee was following the same method of accounting and he submitted all along revenue was accepting this method. The Ld AR relied on jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT versus 9 Suresh Mehta Gopal Purohit (2011) 336 ITR 287 and further he brought to notice para 10 of the CBDT circular No.4/2007 dated 15 6 2007 to submit that the CBDT has allowed the taxpayer to have 2 portfolios i.e., investment portfolio and trading portfolio. The assessee can have 2 portfolios and declare income in both heads capital gains as well as business income. He prayed that the income decl…

The DCIT Cir 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 312/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

Section 54B

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune vs. Shraddha & Prasad Joint Venture, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2665/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2665/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

Section 194CSection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 2665/PUN/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Shraddha & Prasad Joint Venture, Shraddha House, CTS No.1206/A/1, Plot No. 887-A, Shirole Road, Off. J M Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411 004 PAN : ABGFS6231A ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishore Phadke Revenue by : Shri Deepak Garg सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearin…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…w the position to be changed in a subsequent year.” 7.18 This view has been followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neo Ploy Pack (P) Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [2011] 336 ITR 287. 7.19 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Realest Builders and Services Limited (2008) 307 ITR 202 held as: “In case where the department wants to tax an assessee on the ground of the liability arising in a particular year, it should always ascertain the method of accounting followed by the assessee in the past and whether c…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Divya Shakti Trading Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5178/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. and Shri

Section 143(3)

…e shown as investment and the gain has been offered under the head Capital Gain which has been accepted by the department mostly in scrutiny proceedings. I.T.A. No.5178/DEL/2012 19 16. Further, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bom) has upheld the proposition that it is open for the assessee to maintain two separate portfolio one relating to investment in share and another relating to business activities involving dealing in shares. Here, in this case also, the assessee has maintained separate portfolio and the shares in question have been treated as investment. In the…

Smt. Swatiben Anilbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah with ShriFor Respondent: ITA Nos. 1513 to 1515/Ahd/19

Section 143(3)

…e learned AR for the assessee submitted that there are long line of judicial precedents which approves the dual manner of treatment of income as shown by the assessee under the respective heads. Prominent case laws on this score includes CIT vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom.). It was pointed out that CBDT Circular has also adopted the guidelines evolved by judicial precedents as can be seen in CBDT Circular no. 4 of 2007 dated 15.06.2007. It was next pointed out that utilization of borrowed funds on standalone basis cannot be determinative of the nature of income resulting from sale of shares acquired from part…

Ruchit Bharat Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6381/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…assessee is not liable to be changed even on the basis of the principle of consistency and in this regard the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit (2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom). It is also argued that the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of assessee’s family members which is on similar facts and circumstances has treated the income from sale of shares as capital gain by virtue of order dated 11.05.2018 (ITA. No. 204 & 723/M/2014 and 4093, 4094, 4100 & 4887/M/2016). It is also argued that the claim of the family members of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1790/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1578/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Gat No.357/99, Chakan Talegaon Road, Vill- Kharabwadi, Tal. Khed, Chakan, Pune-410 501 Pan : Aacca3106E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri S.P Walimbe

…earlier assessment orders in which short term capital gain has been treated as „business income‟. 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (2010) ( Bombay) 34 DTR 52 wherein the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court has upheld the findings of fact as regards the existence of two distinct types of transactions namely those by way of investment on one hand and those for the purpose of business on the other hand and held that no substantial question of law arises from the same. The Ld. CIT(Appeals), however, opined at…

M/S Advik Hi-Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1578/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri S.P Walimbe

DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kumar Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 605/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 605/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit 1(2)(1), M/S Kumar Properties Pvt. R. No. 535, Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakarbhavan, 21, Woundboy Road, M. K. Road, Hazarimalsomani Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Opp-Mumbai Gymkhana, Fort, Mubmai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aabck8464E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : &

For Appellant: ShriDrop Singh MeenaFor Respondent: ShriRajanVora/Shri

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 145(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 605/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) DCIT 1(2)(1), M/s Kumar Properties Pvt. R. No. 535, Ltd. बिधम/ AayakarBhavan, 21, Woundboy Road, M. K. Road, HazarimalSomani Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Opp-Mumbai Gymkhana, Fort, Mubmai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AABCK8464E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 14/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s Kumar Properties Pvt. DCIT 1(2)(1), Ltd. R. No. 535, बिधम/ 21, Woundboy Road,…

Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3785/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ld that if the shares have been held under the portfolio of 14 ITA No. 3785/Del./2017 investment which is separate from the shares then same cannot be brought to tax under the head capital gain. Some of the judgments are as under: - 1. CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) [Also confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court] 2. CIT vs. Vinay Mittal, 208 taxman 106 (Del. HC) 3. ITO vs. Rohit Anand, (2009) 34 SOT 42 (Del.) 4. CIT vs. Amit Jain, 374 ITR 550 (Del.) 5. CIT vs. Sahara India Housing Corporation Ltd., ITA No.740/2009 (Del.) 18. In the light of the catena of decision Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and also s…