CIT v. H. Holck Larsen

160 ITR 67Supreme Court of India1986#1973 most cited

What is CIT v. H. Holck Larsen authority for?

The determination of whether a transaction involving the sale and purchase of shares (or other assets) constitutes a trading transaction (business income) or an investment (capital gains) is a mixed question of law and fact. Courts must consider cumulative factors, including the assessee's habitual dealing and the intention at the time of the initial acquisition, rather than applying abstract tests.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. H. Holck Larsen · 160 ITR 67 · trading transaction vs investment · shares stock-in-trade · capital gains vs business income · mixed question of law and fact · intention of assessee · cumulative factors · Section 111A · Section 45 · character of transaction · habitual dealing

Also reported as

26 Taxmann 305

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 111ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 45Section 54BSection 54F
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 111aperiod of holdingshort term capital gainssection 2(14)short term capital gaindate of transfersection 36(1)(iii)long term capital gainslong term capital gainsection 40(a)section 36(1)section 43

Judgments citing CIT v. H. Holck Larsen

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -3 vs. Dreamland Build Tech P. Ltd

ITA/829/2015HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 143(3)

…ended to earn dividends by investing in shares. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Manchanda on the decisions in CIT (Central) v. Associated Industrial Development Company (P) Ltd (1971) 82ITR 586 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. H. Hoick Larsen (1986)160 ITR 67 (SC) and the decision of the Authority for Advance Rulings in the case of Fidelity Northstar Fund (2007) 288 ITR 641 (AAR). He also referred to the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT') guidelines issued on IS'^ December 2005. 8. There are certain factual aspects which have to be first considered before the above submissions of Mr. Manchanda can…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 vs. Dreamland Build Tech P. Ltd

ITA/908/2015HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 143(3)

…ended to earn dividends by investing in shares. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Manchanda on the decisions in CIT (Central) v. Associated Industrial Development Company (P) Ltd (1971) 82ITR 586 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. H. Hoick Larsen (1986)160 ITR 67 (SC) and the decision of the Authority for Advance Rulings in the case of Fidelity Northstar Fund (2007) 288 ITR 641 (AAR). He also referred to the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT') guidelines issued on IS'^ December 2005. 8. There are certain factual aspects which have to be first considered before the above submissions of Mr. Manchanda can…

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)

…lar No. 4/2007 dated 15/06/2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta v. Associated Industrial Development Company (P) Ltd. (82 ITR 586) ITA 3200/Mum/2012 4 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Holck Larsen (160 ITR 67), AAR Ruling in 288 ITR 641. Thus, the A.O. held that the transactions in shares entered into by the assessee cannot be treated as investment in shares and accordingly the resultant income/loss arising out of them cannot be treated as income/loss under the head capital gain keeping in view the substantial volume and frequency of transactions in sh…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Rajesh D Nandu (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1721/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1721/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Sanghavi
Section 143(2)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1721/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Rajesh D Nandu(HUF) Tax-25(2), C-103, Shailesh Apartment SVP Room No. 108, 1st Floor, Bldg. No. C- Road, Borivali(W), बनाम/ 11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 092. Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAAHR 1531H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : : Miss. R.M. Madhavi अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Manish Sangha…

Sonal Vipul Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7040/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 7040/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(1)

…The relevant para no. 10 of ITA No. 6497/Mum/09 and others is extracted as under: “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Associated Industrial Development Co P Ltd reported in 82 ITR 586 as well as in the case o CIT vs. H Holsck Larzen reported in 160 ITR 67 has laid down various principles, which has been considered by the CBDT for issuing the circular no. 4/2007 dated 15.6.2007. In short, the principles laid down in those cases for deciding the question of nature of the transaction as trading or investment, mainly/broadly are:- what is the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase of shares;…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. H.K. Financiers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1526/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Patodi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N o n e
Section 143(3)

…primarily on jurisdictional ITAT, 'B'-Bench, Kolkata in the case of DCIT Vs. Reliance Trading Enterprises Ltd (ITAT No. 944/Kol/2008 dt. 3.1.2008) and host of other important case laws mentioned as under for deciding this issue: CIT V. H. Holck Larsen (1986) 160 ITR 67 (SC) CIT V. Rewashankar A Kothari (2006) 201 CTR 510 (Guj) CIT V. Ramamrithans (2008) 217 CTR 206 (Mad) CIT V. Associated Industrial Development Co. Ltd. (SC) 82 ITR 586 Janak S. Rangwalla V. ACIT (2007) 11 SOT 627 (Mum. Trib.) CIT V. N.S.S. Investments P. Ltd. (2005) 277 ITR 149 (Mad) Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. V. ITO (220) 115 TTJ 639 (Mum. Trib.) Gop…

Sobhagya Mal Singhvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3), Mumbai

ITA 5085/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri N. Jayendra (AR)For Respondent: Shri B.S.N. Raju-(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, " ई” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“E”,BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं एवं संजय गग", "याियक सद"य एवं एवं Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sanjay Garg,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.5085/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Sobhagya Mal Singhvi The DCIT-12(3) 2nd Floor, Jeevan Sahakar Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.E. Road Sir P.M. Road, Fort,Mumbai-1. Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AAJPS 51…

DCIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Envision Investment & Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 2322/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.2322/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 Acit-Range-9(1) Envision Investment & Finance Room No.223, Aayakar Bhavan Pvt. Ltd. 402, 4Th Floor, Vyapar Bhavan M.K. Road Vs Mumbai-400 020. 386/370, Narsi Natha Street Masjid (W) Mumbai-400 009. Pan: Aaace 2990 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.1376/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Acit-Range-9(1) Ltd., Masjid (W) Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 009. Vs (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.PawarFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath R. Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…tment would not affect the reality of the situation.He referred to the circular no.4, 2007 dated 15.10.2007 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes along with the cases of associated industrial development company(Private Limited)(82 ITR 586),Holck Larsen(160 ITR 67).He further held that motive of the assessee was appearing from the fact that the shares purchased and sold were part of his trade/business, that it has sold and purchase shares in voluminous quantity,that it had traded in 25.89 lakhs shares of five companies(purchase of Rs.70.39 lakhs and sales of Rs.91.44 lakhs),that under the head LTCG it trade…

ACIT 12(2), Mumbai vs. Rajesh Amratlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7190/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Viraj M. Shah

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “डी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी बी.आर. बा"करन, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 7190/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-12(2) Room No. 134, Àayakar Bhavan अपीलाथ"/Appellant M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 बनाम/ Vs. Shri Rajesh Amratlal Shah 5, Voctoria Bldg., 1st Floor 27, Sayyad Abdulla Brelavi Road ""यथ"/Respondent Opp. Mumbai Samachar Press, Fort Mumbai 40001 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN - AAHPS4041C Shri Uday B. J…

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

…ay of dividend etc. then the profits accruing by change in such investment “by sale of shares” will yield capital gain and not Revenue receipts. The learned CIT(DR) also referred the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. H. Holck Larsen – 160 ITR 67 (S.C) holding that as to whether transactions of sale and purchase of shares were trading transaction or whether these were in the nature of investment is not a question of law but it is a mixed question of law and facts. The learned CIT(DR) referred page No. 18 of the assessment order to support his submissions that there were lot of frequency…

Ashish C Singhania, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)-1, Mumbai

ITA 3475/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2008-09
For Respondent: Ms. Vinita J. Menon
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…onsequently capital gain couldnot be treated as business income. The FAA considered AO's order, submissions made for the assessee and materials on record and referred to the cases of Associated Industrial Development Co. P. Ltd.(82 ITR 586) and H Holck Larsen(160 ITR 67)and the Circular No.A/2007 dated 15/06/2007 issued by the CBDT.He held that the principle of res judicata was not applicable to income tax proceedings and the nature of transactions is to be adjudged on the basis of the facts and circumstances in each year,that in the present day scenario of transactions in BSE/NSE over computer and direct credit/…

Sanjeev Mittal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above

ITA/520/2014HC Delhi02 Feb 2015

…decision, the CIT(Appeals) was guided by several binding decisions, such as CIT V. Associated Industrial Development Company (P) Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 586 (SC), Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh V. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT V. Holck Larsen (1987) 160 ITR 67 (SC) etc. In fact the order of the CIT (Appeals) with respect to analysis of the facts covers a considerable part of the order. 12. Likewise the analysis of case law and the inference is drawn on the basis of its application run into over 30 pages. The contentions noted by the CIT (Appeals) are at para 2.11 and its findings ultimately favou…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-II vs. Smt. Kusum Gupta

ITA/206/2014HC Delhi06 May 2014
Section 10

…. The reasoning of the ITAT, in our opinion, is in conformity with the law declared by the Supreme Court in several decisions such as CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. 100 ITR 706 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. H. Holck Larsen, (1986) 160 ITR 67 (SC). 5. In this view of the matter, we hold that there is no substantial question of law for our consideration. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) VIBHU BAKHRU (JUDGE) MAY 06…

CIT vs. Devasan Investment Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1103 / 2011HC Delhi16 Apr 2014

…ITAs 1102/2011 & 1103/2011 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON: 21.03.2014 PRONOUNCED ON: 16.04.2014 ITAs 1102/2011 & 1103/2011 + ITA 1102/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV …….APPELLANT Through : Mr. N.P. Sahni, Advocate. Versus M/S DEVASAN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. ……RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. + ITA 1103/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV …….APPELLANT Through : Mr. N.P. Sahni, Advocate. Versus M/S DEVASAN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. ……RESPONDENTS Th…

CIT vs. Devasan Investment Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1102 / 2011HC Delhi16 Apr 2014

…ITAs 1102/2011 & 1103/2011 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON: 21.03.2014 PRONOUNCED ON: 16.04.2014 ITAs 1102/2011 & 1103/2011 + ITA 1102/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV …….APPELLANT Through : Mr. N.P. Sahni, Advocate. Versus M/S DEVASAN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. ……RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. + ITA 1103/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV …….APPELLANT Through : Mr. N.P. Sahni, Advocate. Versus M/S DEVASAN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. ……RESPONDENTS Th…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VII vs. Avinash Jain

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/703/2012HC Delhi09 Jan 2013
For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, AdvFor Respondent: None

…ax (Appeals) had placed reliance, inter alia, on the CBDT circular No.4/2007 dated 15.06.2007 as also upon decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P) Ltd. : 82 ITR 586 (SC) and CIT Vs. H.Holck Larsen : 160 ITR 67 (SC). 4. The said circular of the CBDT reads as under:- “CBDT also wishes to emphasize it is possible for a tax payer to have two portfolios i.e. an investment portfolio comprising of securities which are to be treated as capital assets and a trading portfolio comprising of stock in trade which are to be treated as trading assets. Where a…

CIT vs. Vinay Mittal

ITA/1172/2011HC Delhi27 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…in a position to produce evidence from his records as to whether it has maintained any distinction between those shares which are its stock-in-trade and those which are held by way of investment.” 6. In the case of CIT, Bombay v. H. Holck Larsen [1986] 160 ITR 67, the Supreme Court observed : ITA 1172/2011 Page 7 of 13 “The High Court, in our opinion, made a mistake in observing whether transactions of sale and purchase of shares were trading transactions or whether these were in the n…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pnb Finance & Industries Ltd

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to

ITA/306/2010HC Delhi18 Oct 2010
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 8th September, 2010 % Judgment Pronounced on: 18th October, 2010 + ITA No.306/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Adv. versus PNB FINANCE & INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Ms. Akanksha Aggarwal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not…