CIT v. Mohakapur Ice and Cold Storage

74 ITR 692High Court1969#10206 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Mohakapur Ice and Cold Storage

TARUN HARSHI MOTTA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2602/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyaltarun Harshi Motta, 9 Square, Ramdas Sutrale Marg, Off. Chandavarkar Lane, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400092. Pan: Aaepm9064A ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Central Circle-6(1), Room No. 1905, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hitesh M. ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, Sr. DR
Section 250

…are found to be relevant and exactly on the issue under consideration. Assessee relied up on following case laws as under: i). CIT vs. AhmedbhaiUmarbhai& Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC.) ii). Barendra Prasad Roy vs. CIT 129 ITR 295 (SC.) iii). Bhogilal H. Patel vs. CIT 74 ITR 692 (Bom.) 14. In view of the facts discussed (supra) and considering the decisions of various Hon’ble Courts, we are of the considered opinion that inference drawn by the AO and further confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable on the given set of facts. As the assessee invested in the land almost 10 years ago and there is no further activity…

M/S FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 259/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan .M, CIT DR
Section 234Section 51

…d. V. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502 (Madras) iv. CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. [1966] 62 ITR 578 (Madras) v. CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen [1989] 176 ITR 393 (Madras) vi. CIT v. Raunaq Singh Swaran Singh [1972] 85 ITR 220 (Delhi) vii. Bhogilal H. Patel v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 692 (Bombay) viii. CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal [2007] 298 ITR 277 (Madhya Pradesh) ix. CIT v. Sushila Devi Jain [2003] 259 ITR 671 (Punjab & Haryana) x. CIT v. Mohakampur Ice & Cold Storage [2005] 281 ITR 354 (Allahabad) xi. Deputy CIT v. Smt. Thankamma Simon [2015] 55 taxmann.com 331 (Cochin — Trib.) 8. On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that the sai…

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5337/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2007-08 AY: 2008-09 Amrit Corp Limited, vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amrit Nagar, G.T. Road, Range-2, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. (PAN: AAFCA7387Q) AY: 2008-09 AY: 2007-08 Addl.CIT, vs Amrit Corp Limited, Range-II, Ghaziabad. VGO-2, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, Advs. Respondent by : Shri S.K. Jain, DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER These four appeals have a common…

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4579/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2007-08 AY: 2008-09 Amrit Corp Limited, vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amrit Nagar, G.T. Road, Range-2, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. (PAN: AAFCA7387Q) AY: 2008-09 AY: 2007-08 Addl.CIT, vs Amrit Corp Limited, Range-II, Ghaziabad. VGO-2, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, Advs. Respondent by : Shri S.K. Jain, DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER These four appeals have a common…

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2163/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2007-08 AY: 2008-09 Amrit Corp Limited, vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amrit Nagar, G.T. Road, Range-2, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. (PAN: AAFCA7387Q) AY: 2008-09 AY: 2007-08 Addl.CIT, vs Amrit Corp Limited, Range-II, Ghaziabad. VGO-2, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, Advs. Respondent by : Shri S.K. Jain, DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER These four appeals have a common…

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1789/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2007-08 AY: 2008-09 Amrit Corp Limited, vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amrit Nagar, G.T. Road, Range-2, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. (PAN: AAFCA7387Q) AY: 2008-09 AY: 2007-08 Addl.CIT, vs Amrit Corp Limited, Range-II, Ghaziabad. VGO-2, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, Advs. Respondent by : Shri S.K. Jain, DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER These four appeals have a common…

A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 21(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 4571/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…ase of Raja Bahadur Wisheshwara Singh 41 ITR 685 (SC), it has been held that the magnitude, frequency, ratio of purchase & sales and holding will indicate the whether assessee was dealing in shares as business. Similar views have been held in 81 ITR 179(Cal), 74 ITR 692(Bom), 42 ITR 743(SC), 41 ITR' 685,692(SC). Hence the overall effect of far-t or s like volume and number of transactions, period of holding, high percentage of number of transactions as well as profits in shares held for shorter period, number of transactions where no delivery of shares was taken, repetitive dealing in same scrip, utilization of b…

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3543/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…ase of Raja Bahadur Wisheshwara Singh 41 ITR 685 (SC), it has been held that the magnitude, frequency, ratio of purchase & sales and holding will indicate the whether assessee was dealing in shares as business. Similar views have been held in 81 ITR 179(Cal), 74 ITR 692(Bom), 42 ITR 743(SC), 41 ITR' 685,692(SC). Hence the overall effect of far-t or s like volume and number of transactions, period of holding, high percentage of number of transactions as well as profits in shares held for shorter period, number of transactions where no delivery of shares was taken, repetitive dealing in same scrip, utilization of b…

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3542/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…ase of Raja Bahadur Wisheshwara Singh 41 ITR 685 (SC), it has been held that the magnitude, frequency, ratio of purchase & sales and holding will indicate the whether assessee was dealing in shares as business. Similar views have been held in 81 ITR 179(Cal), 74 ITR 692(Bom), 42 ITR 743(SC), 41 ITR' 685,692(SC). Hence the overall effect of far-t or s like volume and number of transactions, period of holding, high percentage of number of transactions as well as profits in shares held for shorter period, number of transactions where no delivery of shares was taken, repetitive dealing in same scrip, utilization of b…

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3541/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…ase of Raja Bahadur Wisheshwara Singh 41 ITR 685 (SC), it has been held that the magnitude, frequency, ratio of purchase & sales and holding will indicate the whether assessee was dealing in shares as business. Similar views have been held in 81 ITR 179(Cal), 74 ITR 692(Bom), 42 ITR 743(SC), 41 ITR' 685,692(SC). Hence the overall effect of far-t or s like volume and number of transactions, period of holding, high percentage of number of transactions as well as profits in shares held for shorter period, number of transactions where no delivery of shares was taken, repetitive dealing in same scrip, utilization of b…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 94/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: MD.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ad "capital gains". The appellant's claim for assessment under the head capital gain is found to be supported by the following judicial decisions on which reliance was placed by the Ld. AIR in his written submissions. i) CIT Vs. Mohakampur Ice & Cold Storage (281 ITR 354) (All) (2006) ii) CIT Vs. Smr. Radha Bai 272 ITR 264 (Del) (2005) iii) CIT Vs. Sushila Devijan(259 ITR 671 (P & H) (2003) iv) CIT Vs. Trivedi (V.A) (1721TR 95 (Bom) 1998” 29. The CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Kolkata in ITA No.92/Kol/2010 dated 13.4.2011 in the case of DCIT Vs. Machino Techno Sales Ltd., wherein on identica…