What is CIT v. PKN authority for?

A purchase made without the intention to resell, where a resale occurs due to changed circumstances, is considered a realization of capital and does not make the transaction a business venture. However, if a purchase is made with the intention to resell, the nature of the venture (capital account or trade) depends on the assessee's conduct and case circumstances.

How many judgments cite CIT v. PKN?

23 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. PKN (60 ITR 65), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. PKN come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153D, Section 250, Section 271B, Section 44A, Section 44AB.

CIT v. PKN (60 ITR 65)

TULIKA KEDIA, NEW DELHI,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 147/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 147/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 271BSection 44A

…d circumstances of each case taking into consideration the nature of the transaction, frequency and volume of transactions etc. For this, attention is invited to the following judgements where this issue has been considered. (i) CIT v. PKN. and Co Ltd (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC) (ii) Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 242 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC) (iv) G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 1TR 594 (SC) Further, CBDT Circular No. 4/2007. dated 15-6-2007-Appendix II (Page no. 217) may also be referred to. 9 Tuleka Kedia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central C…

KANUBHAI VANMALIBHAI PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

…anchi),  Narayan Prabhu Gavali (2006) 5 SOT-558 (Bang.),  S K. Kantilal (231 CTR 531- P&H),  Delhi Apartment (P) Limited (135 ITD-441) (Delhi), 15 Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF Vs ITO  Harjit Singh Sanga (37 taxmann.com 63 P& H),  P. K. N. & Co Limited (60 ITR 65-SC),  Kaur Singh (144 ITR 756 P & H),  Michael Kallivayalil (102 ITR 202 Ker),  Kasturi Estate (P) Limited (62 ITR 578 Madras),  Omkarmal Rambilas Ginning and Processing Factory (44 SOT 544 Hyd Trib.),  Rewashanker A Kothari (283 ITR 338- Gujarat),  Marudhar Hotels (P) Limited (92 DTR-1 Jodhpur Trib.) and  D.N. Krishanappa (21 DTR -11 Bangal…

ITO WARD-10(4),KOLKATA, 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)

…Viswshwara Singh Vs. CIT, 41 ITR 685 (SC). 7 I.T.A. No. 302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Aum Capital Market Pvt. Ltd (d) Purchase without an intention to resell where they are sold under changed circumstances would be capital gains. CIT Vs. PKN, 60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon…

MANAZ RETAIL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 7636/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Manz Retail P. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range-8(2) Knowledge House, Shyam Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Vs. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), R. No. Manz Retail P. Ltd. 209, 2Nd Floor, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vipul Joshi,Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr.Vipul Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Neil Philip, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…e, shares, is made without the intention to resell at a profit, a resale under changed circumstances would only be a realisation of capital and would not stamp the transaction with a business character (see Commissioner of Income-tax v. P.K.N. Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC). Where a purchase is made with the intention of resale, it depends upon the conduct of the assessee and the circumstances of the case whether the venture is on capital account or in the nature of trade. A transaction is not necessarily in the nature of trade because the purchase was made with the intention of resale (see Jenkinson v. Freedland…

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1298/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 148

…ontra, the Counsel for assessee brought our attention to the said paragraph 5.3 of CIT(A)‟s order and submitted that the CIT(A) granted relief relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Roopa J Gupta the case of CIT Vs. PKN Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC), Saroj Kumar Majumdar Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) and the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit in ITA No.1121 of 2009, dated 06.01.2010. Further, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted the issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the order of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Apoorva Patni Vs. Addl…

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1297/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 148

…ontra, the Counsel for assessee brought our attention to the said paragraph 5.3 of CIT(A)‟s order and submitted that the CIT(A) granted relief relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Roopa J Gupta the case of CIT Vs. PKN Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC), Saroj Kumar Majumdar Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) and the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit in ITA No.1121 of 2009, dated 06.01.2010. Further, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted the issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the order of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Apoorva Patni Vs. Addl…

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1296/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 148

…ontra, the Counsel for assessee brought our attention to the said paragraph 5.3 of CIT(A)‟s order and submitted that the CIT(A) granted relief relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Roopa J Gupta the case of CIT Vs. PKN Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC), Saroj Kumar Majumdar Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) and the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit in ITA No.1121 of 2009, dated 06.01.2010. Further, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted the issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the order of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Apoorva Patni Vs. Addl…

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1300/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 148

…ontra, the Counsel for assessee brought our attention to the said paragraph 5.3 of CIT(A)‟s order and submitted that the CIT(A) granted relief relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Roopa J Gupta the case of CIT Vs. PKN Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC), Saroj Kumar Majumdar Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) and the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit in ITA No.1121 of 2009, dated 06.01.2010. Further, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted the issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the order of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Apoorva Patni Vs. Addl…

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1299/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 148

…ontra, the Counsel for assessee brought our attention to the said paragraph 5.3 of CIT(A)‟s order and submitted that the CIT(A) granted relief relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Roopa J Gupta the case of CIT Vs. PKN Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC), Saroj Kumar Majumdar Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) and the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit in ITA No.1121 of 2009, dated 06.01.2010. Further, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted the issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the order of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Apoorva Patni Vs. Addl…

RAMESH G PORWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1727/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…1961) 41 ITR 685(SC); (b) Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 486 (SC); (c) CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC); (d) A.V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 67 (SC); (e) CIT v. P.K.N. Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 65 (SC); and (f) CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd.[1971] 82 ITR 586 (SC). 5.2.1.1. The Assessing Officer examined the details of the transactions which totaled 198 for the whole year, including multiple transactions that had been clubbed together on one single date. A perusal of the relevant transactions, detailed at pgs.12 to 17…

VIDYASAGAR M.P SAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 23(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 527/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vidyasagar M. P. Sah Dy. Cit-23(3), बनाम/ 22-A, Bandstand Society, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 197-C, Kane Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafps 5412 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Aarjoo Garodia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.01.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs.3,51,66,426/- Treated As Business Income 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs.3,51,66,426/- As 'Business Income1 Without Appreciating The Crucial Facts That The Assessee Is A Professional / Consultant For Exploration & Drilling Activities For Oil Wells / Rigs Etc. Which Is The Principal Source Of Income Since 32 Years, Wherein He Has To Devote Maximum Time & The Activity Has Been Accepted By The Department In All The Prior Years As Well As In The Relevant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Aarjoo Garodia

…ssessee will not be conclusive and if the volume, frequency and regularity at which transactions are carried out indicate systematic and organized activity with profit motive then it become business profit not capital gain. In the case of CIT vs. PKN Co. Ltd. 60 ITR 65 it was held that purchase with an intention to resale will also, under the changed circumstances, would be capita! gains. It is also held in the case of Saroj Kumar Mazumdar vs. CIT 37 ITR 242 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that purchase with an intention to resale in order to gain profit will be business profit depending on the circumstances of the…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 173/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 271A

…oner of Income tax 2007 11 SOT 273 (ITAT, Mumbai) " Bombay Gymkhana Limited v Income tax officer 115 TTJ 639 (ITAT-Mumbai) " G Venkataswami Naidu and Co. v Commissioner of Income tax [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC) " Commissioner of Income tax v PKN Co. Limited [1966] 60 ITR 65(SC) " Gustad Dinshaw Irani v Commissioner of Income tax [1957] 31 ITR 92 (Bombay) " Mrs DM Alexander v Commissioner of Income tax [1952] 22 ITR 379 (Madras) " Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v Commissioner of Income tax [1959] 37 ITR 242 (SC) " Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v Commissioner of Income tax [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC) " Commissioner of Income tax v Jagarnath Pr…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1527/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…3 (Guj) and Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs CIT reported in (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC) (d) Purchase without an intention to resell where they are sold under changed circumstances would be capital gains. CIT vs P.K.N. Co. Ltd reported in (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale of businss profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar vs CIT reported in (1959) 37 ITR 242 (SC) (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the questio…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…3 (Guj) and Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs CIT reported in (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC) (d) Purchase without an intention to resell where they are sold under changed circumstances would be capital gains. CIT vs P.K.N. Co. Ltd reported in (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale of businss profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar vs CIT reported in (1959) 37 ITR 242 (SC) (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the questio…

D.C.I.T CC - VIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PURBANCHAL LEASING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1429/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan,J.M. & Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT,DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…3 (Guj); Raja Bahadur Viswshwara Singh Vs. CIT, 41 ITR 685 (SC). ITA No.1429/Kol/2013-M/s. Purvanchal Leasing Ltd. A.Y.2006-07 7 (d) Purchase without an intention to resell where they are sold under changed circumstances would be capital gains. CIT Vs. PKN, 60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon…

ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI VENTURES (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4243/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4303/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(3), बनाम/ 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl 1082 G (Assessee) : (Revenue) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4243/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Asst. Cit-6(3), Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl 1082 G (Revenue) (Assessee) : Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhatt : Shri S. R. Singh Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E. By The Assessee & The Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Vi, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’For Short) Dated 20.5.2009, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 31.12.2007 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06. 2

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ht of certain case laws in the matter, viz.: i. Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh vs. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC); ii. XYZ/ABC Equity Fund, In re [2001] 250 ITR 194; iii. A. V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1963] 48 ITR (SC) 67; iv. CIT vs. P. K. N. Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 65 (SC); v. CIT vs. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 586 (SC); vi. G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (35 ITR 194); vii. CIT vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Limited (100 ITR 706); and viii. CIT vs. H. Hoick Larsen [1986] 160 ITR 67 (SC). However, for the sake of completeness of our order, we may analyse his findin…

MR. CHETAN KANTILAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 25(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 637/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)

…gain. CIT Vs. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd., 113 ITR 173 (Guj); Raja Bahadur Viswshwara Singh Vs. CIT, 41 ITR 685 (SC). (d) Purchase without an intention to resell where they are sold under changed circumstances would be capital gains. CIT v/s PKN, 60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon…

DCIT CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S K.B. CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &

Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

…gain. CIT Vs. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd., 113 ITR 173 (Guj); Raja Bahadur Viswshwara Singh Vs. CIT, 41 ITR 685 (SC). (d) Purchase without an intention to resell where they are sold under changed circumstances would be capital gains. CIT Vs. PKN, 60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon…

KB CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 6 , KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &

Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

…gain. CIT Vs. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd., 113 ITR 173 (Guj); Raja Bahadur Viswshwara Singh Vs. CIT, 41 ITR 685 (SC). (d) Purchase without an intention to resell where they are sold under changed circumstances would be capital gains. CIT Vs. PKN, 60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HOBB INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 1383/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1383/Kol/2010 Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niloy Baran Som JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…gain. CIT Vs. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd., 113 ITR 173 (Guj); Raja Bahadur Viswshwara Singh Vs. CIT, 41 ITR 685 (SC). (d) Purchase without an intention to resell where they are sold under changed circumstances would be capital gains. CIT Vs. PKN, 60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon…

CIT v. PKN

What is CIT v. PKN authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Judgments citing CIT v. PKN

TULIKA KEDIA, NEW DELHI,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

KANUBHAI VANMALIBHAI PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

ITO WARD-10(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AUM CAPITAL MARKET PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

MANAZ RETAIL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

RAMESH G PORWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

VIDYASAGAR M.P SAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 23(3), MUMBAI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

D.C.I.T CC - VIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PURBANCHAL LEASING LTD, KOLKATA

ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI VENTURES (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

MR. CHETAN KANTILAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 25(3), MUMBAI

DCIT CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S K.B. CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

KB CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 6 , KOLKATA., KOLKATA

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HOBB INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA