CIT v. Principal Officer, Laxmi Surgical P. Ltd.

202 ITR 601High Court1993#19778 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Principal Officer, Laxmi Surgical P. Ltd.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mohinder Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2310/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…nough but in conjunction with the conduct of the assessee and other circumstances it may point to the trading character of the transaction.” (iv) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Principal Officer, Laxmi Surgical P. Ltd. reported in [1993] 202 ITR 601 after applying the test laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v, CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 and other cases has held that any transaction undertaken with an intention to earn profit 12 ITA.Nos.2309 & 2310/Del./2011 Shri Arjun Puri And Shri Mohinder Puri, New Delhi. is not enough to give it the character of stock-…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Arjun Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2309/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…nough but in conjunction with the conduct of the assessee and other circumstances it may point to the trading character of the transaction.” (iv) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Principal Officer, Laxmi Surgical P. Ltd. reported in [1993] 202 ITR 601 after applying the test laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v, CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 and other cases has held that any transaction undertaken with an intention to earn profit 12 ITA.Nos.2309 & 2310/Del./2011 Shri Arjun Puri And Shri Mohinder Puri, New Delhi. is not enough to give it the character of stock-…

Asst CIT Palghar Cir Palghar, Mumbai vs. Subhash Ratilal Parekh (HUF), Palghar

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1652/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1652/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asst. Cit, Palghar Circle, Subhash Ratilal Parekh (Huf) Aayakar Bhavan, Ito, Bidco Road, 225, Near Raman Rice Mill, बनाम/ Palghar, Dist. Palghar-401 404 Kurgaon, Boisar, Vs. Tal. Palghar, Dist. Thane-401 502 Now Dist. Palghar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No .Aarhs 5872 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. C. Omi Ningshan ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Panchmia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 05.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 14.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 02.12.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The Issue Raised Is That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Treating The Business Income Of Rs.1,34,00,500/- As Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri M. C. Omi NingshanFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Panchmia

…ctional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Administrator of the Estate of Shri E.F. Dinshaw [2012] 22 taxmann.com 57 (Bom) and also the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Principal Officer Laxmi Surgical (P.) Ltd. [1993] 202 ITR 601 (Bom). Hence, we confirm the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 8. In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.02.2018 (Ram Lal Negi) (Shamim Yahya) "या"यक सद"य / Judicial Member लेखा सद"य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 14.02.2018 व."न.स./Roshani, Sr.…

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

…tax [1965] 57 ITR 21(SC) " Commissioner of Income tax v Vikram Cotton Mills Limited [1988] 169 ITR 597(SC) " Vinod M Shah v Additional Commissioner of Income tax [2010] 38 SOT 503 (ITAT-Mumbai) " Commissioner of Income tax v Laxmi Surgical (P) Limited [1993] 202 ITR 601 (HC-Bombay) " Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v M/s. SMK Shares & Stock Broking Private Limited (ITA No.799/Mum./2009) (ITAT- Mumbai) " Citadell Agencies (P) Ltd. v Assistant Commissioner 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 Commiss…

CIT v. Principal Officer, Laxmi Surgical P. Ltd. (202 ITR 601) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax