CIT v. Lokmat Newspaper (P) Ltd.

192 ITR 365High Court1991#15182 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Lokmat Newspaper (P) Ltd.

Jai Bhikshu Credit and Holding Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2911/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishijai Bhikshu Credit & Holding Vs. Dcit, Ltd, F-591, Sarita Vihar, Circle-13(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacj0774F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V P Guta & Anuvav KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 73

…total income of the appellant does not mainly consist of business income nor it is engaged in the business of banking or of granting of loans or advances, it is not covered under Explanation of section 73. In the case of CIT v. Arvind Investments Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 365, the question referred to the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court was whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Explanation to section 73 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has no application in the case in view of the fact that the entire business of the assessee was in share dealing and while answering the…

DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Adroit Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3282/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 43(5)Section 73

…ove amount by invoking Sec 73 and treating the transactions of appellant made in cash segment and F&O segment differently and putting them in two different category. While doing so the AO has further referred and relied on the case of Arvind Investments P Ltd 192 ITR 365 of Hon'bleKolkatta High Court. However, it may be stated that in the case of Arvind Investment Co. was engaged in share dealing activities-whereas the present appellant is a recognized share broker Company with BSE and NSE. Therefore, there is a difference and so the two activity and transactions of the two cases cannot be treated on same footing…

ACIT - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Progressive Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5317/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-4(2)(1), M/S Progressive Share Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacp6712H

Section 14ASection 43(5)Section 73

…/s Progressive Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd. be treated as normal business income and cannot be adjusted or set off against income from speculative transactions. 1. CIT v. Lokmat Newspapers P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 43 (Bom) ; 2. CIT v. Arvind Investments Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 365 (Cal) ; 3. Araska Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (I. T. A No. 5631/M/12, dated October 17, 2014 (Mumbai)) for the assessment year 2009-10 ; 4. Asst. CIT v. Sucham Finance and Investments (I) Ltd. [2007] 290 ITR (AT) 379 (Mumbai) ; 5. Shree Capital Services Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2009] 318 ITR (AT) 1 (Kol) [SB] ; [2009] 121 ITD 498 (Kol) [SB] ; 6.…

Kedia Shares & Stocks Brokers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4033/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(c)Section 73

…ivity as a speculative loss and accordingly, did not allow set off of loss in question from regular business income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) following the judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Arvind Investment Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 365 upheld the order of the A.O. On appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order of the learned CIT(A). 11 In C.D. Equisearch (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 152 ITD 652(Kol.), it has been held that “ Where assessee, a stock broker having transactions in different segments on its own account as well as clients’ account, claimed set off of loss in share trading bu…

Jm Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), Mumbai

Accordingly dismissed. However, in view of our findings given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3654/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. J.M. Financial Services The Joint Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax (Osd)-4(3), (Formerly Jm Financial Room No.635, Services Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 7Th Floor, Cnergy, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaacj5977A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, D.R

Section 14A

…refore the income from derivatives is to be treated as normal business income and can not be adjusted or setoff against income from speculative transactions. “1. CIT vs. Lokmat Newspaper (P) Ltd. – (2010) 322 ITR 43 2. CIT vs. Arvind Investments Ltd. – (1991) 192 ITR 365 3. Araksa Diamond Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5(1), Mumbai – ITA No.5631/M/12 for A.Y. 2009-10 (ITAT-Mumbai) 4. ACIT vs. Sucham Finance & Investment – (2007) 290 ITR 379 (ITAT Mum.) 5. Shree Capital Services Ltd. vs. ACIT (2009) 121 ITD 498 (Kol. ITAT) (SB) 6. C. Bharath Kumar vs. DCIT (2005) 4 SOT 593 (Bang.) (ITAT) 7. DCIT vs. Sski Investors Services (P…

DCIT, Circle - 6, Kolkata vs. Loknath Saraf Securities Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, to sum up ITA No

ITA 852/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 43(5)Section 73

…ss of the assessee. He contended that the Explanation to Section 73 is applicable even in such case where the entire transactions are related to shares and cited the decisions of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Arvind Investments Limited [192 ITR 365] and in the case of CIT –vs.- Park View Properties Pvt. Limited [261 ITR 473] in support of the Revenue’s case. 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that all the relevant transactions resulting into profit/loss are pertaining to the same business of the assessee of dealing in shares and keeping in view the nature of…