CIT v. GopalPurohit

382 ITR 175Reported decision#24764 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. GopalPurohit

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…partment to be on account of capital gains in the earlier years, was held to be not permissible in view of the principals of consistency:  CIT v. S. Ramaamirtham: 306 ITR 239 (Mad.)  CIT v. GopalPurohit: 336 ITR 287 (Bom.)  CIT V. SMAA Enterprises (P) Ltd: 382 ITR 175 (J&K)  Janak S. Rangwalla v. CIT: 11 SOT 627 (Mum)  Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. v. ITO: 115 TTJ 639 (Mum.) In view of the above, on ground of consistency, as well, the transaction of sale of shares/ mutual funds must be accepted to be taxable under the head ‘capital gains’ and the treatment of the same as business income is not sustainable. Re: Remand…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…partment to be on account of capital gains in the earlier years, was held to be not permissible in view of the principals of consistency:  CIT v. S. Ramaamirtham: 306 ITR 239 (Mad.)  CIT v. GopalPurohit: 336 ITR 287 (Bom.)  CIT V. SMAA Enterprises (P) Ltd: 382 ITR 175 (J&K)  Janak S. Rangwalla v. CIT: 11 SOT 627 (Mum)  Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. v. ITO: 115 TTJ 639 (Mum.) In view of the above, on ground of consistency, as well, the transaction of sale of shares/ mutual funds must be accepted to be taxable under the head ‘capital gains’ and the treatment of the same as business income is not sustainable. Re: Remand…

M/S. Kohli Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 410/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 410/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Kohli Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 80, Scindia House, Ward-14(4), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack3430D Assessee By : Sh. G. S. Kohli, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2020

For Appellant: Sh. G. S. Kohli, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 2(14)Section 40a

…ere is no dispute as appellant since from its purchase in 1998 is showing at cost subject to improvement held in that very first year by installing tube-well, boundary walls, etc. and has sold it after the lapse of 13 years. This factor has been considered by 382 ITR 175 (27-30) Jammu & Kashmir High Court 387 ITR 248 (31-33) Karnataka High Court 333 ITR 445 (34-37) Delhi High Court “It is submitted that even the books of accounts/Balance Sheet is not conclusive in determining the nature of income” as held by 336 ITR 287 (38-40) Bombay High Court That without prejudice to above the clerical omission deserves to…

CIT v. GopalPurohit (382 ITR 175) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax