CIT v. PKN

60 ITR 65Supreme Court of India1966#5072 most cited

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.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. PKN · 60 ITR 65 · SC · capital gains · business income · intention to resell · capital account · nature of trade · changed circumstances

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 44ABSection 44B

Judgments citing CIT v. PKN

ITO, Ward - 12(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Manimaya Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 439/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Sallong yaden, Addl.CIT,Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

…3 (Guj); Raja Bahadur Viswshwara Singh Vs. CIT, 41 ITR 685 (SC). ITA No.439/Kol/2009-M/s. Manimaya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2005-06 (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…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahajan Industries P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6295/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhoot, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…uch differential treatment raises a debatable issue and interpretation should go in favour of the appellant. 7.6 The clause in memorandum & articles, referred by AO can be seen in view of the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of CIT Vs P K N Co. Ltd (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC). Wherein it is held that “The incidental sale of uneconomical or inconvenient plots of land could not convert what was essentially an investment into a business transaction in real estate. Existence of power in the memorandum of association to sell or turn into account, dispose of or deal with the properties and rights of all kinds had no deci…

I.T.O WD - 44(4), Kolkata vs. Sri Sailesh Jalan, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1880/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sallong Yoden, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Agarwala, FCA
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)

…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…