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 14ASection 68Section 10(34)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

long term capital gainsection 14asection 10previous yeartransfercompanysection 143businessindiaprescribedsection 143(3)total income

Judgments citing CIT v. Gopal Purohit

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shah Investors Home Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross

ITA 3316/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 36(2)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member ITA No. 3316/Ahd/2015 & CO No. 8/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 The DCIT, M/s. Shah Investors Circle-1(3), Home Ltd. SIHL House, Ahmedabad-15 Vs Opp. Jain Temple, (Appellant) Nehrunagar Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAAFCS4436C (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. Date of hearing : 15-01-2019 Date of pronouncement : 26-02-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE…

Modern Gears P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-7, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2742/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No. 2742/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Modern Gears (P) Ltd..................…………………….………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Aadcm 6128 K] Dcit, Circle-7, Kolkata.........................................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri C. J. Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

Section 111ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 2742/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Modern Gears (P) Ltd..................…………………….………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [PAN : AADCM 6128 K] DCIT, Circle-7, Kolkata.........................................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances by: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Shri C. J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR, appearing on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 2…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 311/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary CIT-D.R
Section 144CSection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “I-2”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.6585/Del/2015 Assessment Year 2011-12 Unitech Limited DCIT 6, Community Centre, Circle- 27(1) Saket vs. C.R. Building, ITO New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi. PAN AAACU1482H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 311 DEL 2016 Assessment year 2011-12 DCIT, Unitech Limited Circle-27(1), Room Vs. 6, Community Centre, No. 193 Saket C.R. Building New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi PAN AAACU1482H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate For Revenue : Shri…

M/S. Unitech Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 6585/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary CIT-D.R
Section 144CSection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “I-2”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.6585/Del/2015 Assessment Year 2011-12 Unitech Limited DCIT 6, Community Centre, Circle- 27(1) Saket vs. C.R. Building, ITO New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi. PAN AAACU1482H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 311 DEL 2016 Assessment year 2011-12 DCIT, Unitech Limited Circle-27(1), Room Vs. 6, Community Centre, No. 193 Saket C.R. Building New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi PAN AAACU1482H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate For Revenue : Shri…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Puran Associates (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 701/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n held under the portfolio of investment which is separate from the I.T.A. No.3078/Del/2011, 820/Del/2013 & 5054/Del/2015 25 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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shri Finance, New Delhi

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 6064/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Shri Finance Circle-31(1) 4, Scindia House Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aacfs9120K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri K. Tiwari, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri U.N.Marwah, Ca Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2018

For Appellant: Shri U.N.Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)

…n.com 394 (Delhi) / [2014] 223 Taxman 245 (Delhi)(MAG) 2. Manoj Kumar Samdaria Vs. CIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 247 (SC) /[2015] 228 Taxman 63 (SC) 3. Sadhana Nabera vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2586/Mum/2009) 4. CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit ([2010] 188 Taxman 140 (Bombay)/[2011] 336 ITR 287 (Bombay)/[2010] 228 CTR 582 (Bombay) 5. Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 486 (SC) 4.0 In response, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that presence of commercial motive is a primary legal requirement for trade whereas in the case of the assessee the period of holding of the investments and earning of substanti…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Wig Investment, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4141/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…on that if shares and securities are disclosed under the head ‘investment’ then it cannot be treated as stock-in-trade for earning business income, he relied upon various judgments including that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582 (Bombay) SLP of which has been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (334 ITR 308); Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd. (2010) 236 CTR; and lastly, Bhanuprasad D. Trivedi (HUF) reported in (2018) 95 taxmann.com19. 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant finding given in the impugned…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Wig Investment, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2167/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…on that if shares and securities are disclosed under the head ‘investment’ then it cannot be treated as stock-in-trade for earning business income, he relied upon various judgments including that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582 (Bombay) SLP of which has been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (334 ITR 308); Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd. (2010) 236 CTR; and lastly, Bhanuprasad D. Trivedi (HUF) reported in (2018) 95 taxmann.com19. 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant finding given in the impugned…

ITO Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Aum Capital Market Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 302/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(4), Kolkata..………....................................….….……………….…......Appellant M/S. Aum Capital Market Pvt. Ltd.....................…..…….……………………………………………..……Respondent 5, Lower Rowdon Street Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan: Aaaco 7624 B] Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 7Th,2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 28Th,2018 Order Per S.S. Godara, Jm :- This Revenue’S Appeal For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 18/11/2016 Passed In Case No. Ita No.1125/Cit(A)-4/Range-10/Kol/14015 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(5)

…prevailing in the case of the assessee, we are of the view that the conclusion of the CIT(A) that the income from sale of shares declared by the assessee as capital gain has to be accepted as correct and calls for no interference. 11. In CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (bom), the question of law raised was regarding whether STCG declared by the Assessee was to be assessed as business income or not. Question (b) considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was as follows: "(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified inholding that principle of consistency mus…

Shri Krishna Shriram, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 866/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263Section 56Section 69

…the impugned asset is to held as a capital asset or a business asset. The appellant also referred to several judicial precedents culled out of CBDT Circular no. 4 of 2007 dated 15.06.2007. The judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit 336 ITR 287 against which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the departmental SLP supports the contention of the appellant. The appellant has also cited the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Rohit Anand reported in 132 ITR 445 and also CIT Vs. Vinay Mittal ITA 1172 page 26. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vinay Mittal, has held that i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Krishna Shriram, New Delhi

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

ITA 1417/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263Section 56Section 69

…the impugned asset is to held as a capital asset or a business asset. The appellant also referred to several judicial precedents culled out of CBDT Circular no. 4 of 2007 dated 15.06.2007. The judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit 336 ITR 287 against which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the departmental SLP supports the contention of the appellant. The appellant has also cited the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Rohit Anand reported in 132 ITR 445 and also CIT Vs. Vinay Mittal ITA 1172 page 26. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vinay Mittal, has held that i…

Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 891/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.891/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aabca5142M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-8, Pune

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(3)

…s ‘Income from business’. He further pointed out that the assessee had placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Gopal Purohit reported in 128 TTJ 87 (Mum), which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 336 ITR 287 (Bom) and also other decisions which are mentioned in para 8 at page 7 of the order of Tribunal; but while deciding the issue, ratio laid down by the said decisions have not been considered. In this regard, he referred to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.1833 of 2018 in Amore Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, jud…

Ketan Pravinchandra Kamdar, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 135/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ketan Pravinchandra Dcit, Central Circle- Kamdar, 111, Loha Bhavan, Vs. 7(3) Erstwhile- Acit, P.D. Mello Road, Carnac Central Circle-42, Bunder, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpk6092R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Paresh Shaparia, Ar Revenue By : Mr. B. Srinivas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Paresh Shaparia, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Srinivas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ketan Pravinchandra DCIT, Central Circle- Kamdar, 111, Loha Bhavan, Vs. 7(3) Erstwhile- ACIT, P.D. Mello Road, Carnac Central Circle-42, Bunder, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AABPK6092R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Paresh Shaparia, AR Revenue by : Mr. B. Srinivas, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 02/08/2018 Date of pronouncement : 21/08/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM The…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5054/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…and other for trading, then it cannot be held that shares held under the head ‘Investment Portfolio’ would be taxed as business income, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, reported in (2011) 336 ITR 287. 9. Ld. CIT (A) noted that in the Assessment Year 2005-06 in assessee’s own case, this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and again in the Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08, this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee; and held that assessee has invested in shares and shares held as investment is to be taxed under the hea…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 820/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…and other for trading, then it cannot be held that shares held under the head ‘Investment Portfolio’ would be taxed as business income, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, reported in (2011) 336 ITR 287. 9. Ld. CIT (A) noted that in the Assessment Year 2005-06 in assessee’s own case, this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and again in the Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08, this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee; and held that assessee has invested in shares and shares held as investment is to be taxed under the hea…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3078/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…and other for trading, then it cannot be held that shares held under the head ‘Investment Portfolio’ would be taxed as business income, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, reported in (2011) 336 ITR 287. 9. Ld. CIT (A) noted that in the Assessment Year 2005-06 in assessee’s own case, this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and again in the Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08, this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee; and held that assessee has invested in shares and shares held as investment is to be taxed under the hea…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…td. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bom.) (para 6); • CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561/187 Taxman 312 (SC) (para 11) and • Hindustan Lever v. R.B.Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332/137 Taxman 479 (Bom.) (para 15) followed. • CIT v. Gopal Purohit [2011] 336 ITR 287/[2010] 188 Taxman 140 (Bom.) (para 9), • CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561/187 Taxman 312 (SC) (para 11) 2.16. In another case in CIT vs Amitabh Bachhan (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom.), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court observed/held as under:- “This appeal by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafte…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Dilip Narayn Borawake, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2425/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 2423 To 2425/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद", एवं "ी िवकास अव थी, "ाियक सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 2423 to 2425/PUN/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Pune .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Shri Dilip Narayan Borawake, 759/37, Sakhunandan, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune – 411 004 PAN : AABHB2720B ……""थ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by : Dr. Vivek Aggarwal सुनवाई की तारीख / घो…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Dilip Narayn Borawake, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2424/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 2423 To 2425/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद", एवं "ी िवकास अव थी, "ाियक सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 2423 to 2425/PUN/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Pune .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Shri Dilip Narayan Borawake, 759/37, Sakhunandan, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune – 411 004 PAN : AABHB2720B ……""थ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by : Dr. Vivek Aggarwal सुनवाई की तारीख / घो…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Commtel Networks P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 909/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dy Cit- 14(1)(2), M/S. Commtel Networks Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 23, White Castle, Vs. 34-35, Union Park, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. Pan Aaacc8966G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain
Section 143(3)

…e sustained by not challenging the order, it would not at all be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year". Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. (1977) 106ITR 1 (SC). Excel industries Ltd (2013) 38 Taxman.com (SC) and Gopal Purohit (2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom). 22. Furthermore, in addition to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Cables Ltd., (supra), Gujarat High Court in case of Amarshiv Construction (P) Ltd., 45 Taxmann.com 429 and Madras High Court in case of Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd., 283 ITR 295 and also in the case of East Coast Constructions Ind. Ltd., 160 Taxmann 399 h…