CIT v. Rohit Anand

327 ITR 445High Court2010#6070 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

weighted deduction section 35(2ab)short term capital gains section 35 short term capital gain capital expenditure long term capital gain section 154 section 26 previous year section 143 prescribed

Judgments citing CIT v. Rohit Anand

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…by the various benches of the Hon’ble Tribunal:  CIT v. Gopal Purohit: 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) (Supreme Court has dismissed the departmental appeal vide CC 16802/2010: 334 ITR 308 (St.))  Jindal Photo Investment Ltd.: 334 ITR 307 (St.) (SC)  CIT v. Rohit Anand: 327 ITR 445 (Del)  CIT v. Vinay Mittal: 208 Taxman 106 (Del) [SLP dismissed by SC]  CIT v. Devasan Investment Pvt. Ltd. : 365 ITR 452 (Del) (Supreme Court has dismissed the Department’s SLP vide CC 17946/2014 : 229 Taxman 496)  CIT v. Consolidated Finvest and Holding Ltd: 337 ITR 264 (Del.)  CIT v. Avinash Jain : 362 ITR 441 (Del)  CIT v. PNB Finance &…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

ITA 74/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…an Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 331 ITR 192 (Del.); CIT vs. International Travel House Lid. 194 Тахтап 324; CIT vs. DLF Power Limited 329 ITR 289 (Del.); CIT vs. Eicher Limited 294 ITR 310 (Del.) CIT vs. Ashish Rajput, 320 ITR 674 (Del.); CIT vs. Rohit Anand, 327 ITR 445 (Del.); CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582 (Bom.); and CIT vs. PNB Finance and Industries Limited, 236 CTR 1 (Del.).…

M/S. CAMPUS BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2850/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.2850/िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2010-11) Templeton Stockgrowth P. Ltd., (Erstwhile M/S. Campus Buildcon P. Ltd.) D-248, Office 103 First Floor, Abhishek Business Centre, Gali No. 10, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadcc-3617-P बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 25(1), New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Salil Kapoor & Shivam Yadav, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 22/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 20.02.2017, For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised A Solitary Issue I.E. Treating Of ‘Short Term Capital Gain’ On Sale Of Shares As ‘Business Income’ Of The Assessee. 3. Shri Salil Kapoor, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That During The Period Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Sold Shares

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, and Shivam Yadav, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR

…ing Officer in para 4.5 of the order has accepted that the assessee is holding shares as investments. To further substantiate his contentions, he placed reliance on various decisions including: CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bombay); CIT vs. Rohit Anand, 327 ITR 445 (Delhi); CIT vs. Ess Jay Enterprises P Ltd., 173 Taxman 1 (Delhi); & CIT vs. Gulmohor Finance Ltd. 170 Taxman 483 (Delhi). 4. Per contra, Shri Surender Pal representing the department vehemently supported findings of the AO and the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the order of authorities below. A per…

CYGNUS VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-11(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 26Section 263

…td. 331 ITR 192(Del.); (viii) CIT Vs. International Travel House Ltd., 194 Taxman 324; (ix) CIT Vs. DLF Power Ltd., 329 ITR 289(Del.); (x) CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd., 294 ITR 310 (De!.); (xi) CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal, 320 ITR 674 (Del.); (xii) CIT Vs. Rohit Anand, 327 ITR 445 (Del); (xiii)CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582(Bom.); (xiv) CIT Vs. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd, 236 CTR 1 (Delhi)”. 9. Per contra, ld. D.R. vehemently argued supporting the detailed finding of the ld. PCIT and the decisions relied therein. It is also contended that the Assessing Officer should have increased the scope of inquiry so as to ex…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 311/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary CIT-D.R

Section 144CSection 36(1)(iii)

…diary were held as stock-in-trade and in support he relied upon the following judgment:- Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit of Bombay High Court reported in 188 Taxman 140. Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Rohit Anand of Delhi High Court reported in 327 ITR 445. CIT vs. Vinay Mittal (Delhi High Court) reported in 208 Taxman 106. 13. On the other hand, Ld. CIT(DR) strongly relied upon the order of the AO and DRP submitted that assessee was regularly selling and purchasing the shares of its subsidiary companies which were nothing but holding land and assessee being a developer, is frequently engaged in se…

M/S. UNITECH LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 6585/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary CIT-D.R

Section 144CSection 36(1)(iii)

DIVYA SHAKTI TRADING SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5029/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2008-09 Dy.Cit Vs. M/S Divya Shakti Trading Services Ltd. Circle 10(1) (Now M/S Indiabulls Advisory Services Ltd.) New Delhi F 60, 2Nd Floor, Malhotra Building Cannaught Place New Delhi Pan: Aaccd4953E A.Y. 2008-09 M/S Divya Shakti Trading Services Dy.Cit Ltd. Vs. Circle 10(1) (Now M/S Indiabulls Advisory New Delhi Services Ltd.) New Delhi Pan: Aaccd4953E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…upreme Court in the case of Anil Jain vs. CIT reported in 294 ITR 435; • decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Vinay Mittal reported in 22 Taxmann.com 151; • decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rohit Anand reported in 327 ITR 445 ; • decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jubilate Securities Pvt. Ltd,, reported in 333 ITR 445 ; he submitted that there was no restriction on assessee to hold 2 portfolios in so far as shares were concerned. He submitted that shares purchased and shown in investment portfolio when sold would result in capital gains. ITA…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 6062/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 10

…apital gains therefrom was accordingly shown in the statement of income as 'long term capital gains' and 'short term capital gains'. In this regard I place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rohit Anand reported in 327 ITR 445 where it was held as under: 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated hereinabove, viewing the matter in totality no inference other than one that the assessee has earned capital gains in its Investment Portfolio as declared by it in the computation of income can be drawn. 17. Assessing Officer's allegation that the entire activi…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 6063/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 10

JCIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. SUPRIA POONGALIA, MUMBAI

ITA 2472/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…ce and stock-in-trade at other place, that there was no reason for the AO to treat the investment in shares by the assessee as stock- in-trade for A.Y.2008-09.He relied upon the cases of Janak S.Rangwalla(11 SOT 627), Gopal Purohit (228 CTR 582), Rohit Anand (327 ITR 445),SMK Shares & Stock Broking Pvt.Ltd.( ITA/799/ Mum/ 2009), Vinod K.Nevatia (ITA/6556/Mum/2009 & 181/Mum/2010).Finally, he allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4.During the course of hearing before us the Departmental Representative(DR) stated that period of holding of the security was very short, that the assessee had borrowed the funds for making…

ANAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. CIT CEN-III, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3895/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3895/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Anand Jain, The Commissioner Of बनाम/ A-13, Sterling Apartments, Income Tax , Central – Iii, V. 38, Peddar Road, Room No. 109, Mumbai – 400 026. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpj1890J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “H” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3895/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Anand Jain, The Commissioner of बनाम/ A-13, Sterling Apartments, Income Tax , Central – III, v. 38, Peddar Road, Room No. 109, Mumbai – 400 026. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AABPJ1890J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Shri Rahul Raman, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing :…

JCIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. NIRMALADEVI POONGALIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is hereby Dismissed

ITA 2474/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.2474/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Nirmaladevi Poongalia बनाम/ Income Tax 16(3) C/O. Karnavat & Co., Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 2A, Kitab Mahal, 1St Floor, Mumbai – 400007 192, Dr. D.N.Road, Mumbai - 400001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapp8868N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…re taken into consideration for arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is an investor the same are not reproduced. However to name a few Janak S. Rangwalla vs ACIT (11 SOT 627), CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom.)(2010), CIT Vs. Rohit Anand (2010) 327 ITR 445 (Del), DCIT Vs. SMK Shares & Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 799/Mum/2009, Vinod K. Nevatia ITA No.6556/Mum/2009 and 181/Mum/2010 and Naishadh V. Vachharajani ITA No.6429/Mum/2009. 9. In view of the detailed discussion of the facts and the legal position and the back ground of the amended provisions on taxation of capital gains on sale of shares…

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

…tal gain and not the business profit. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Radials International Vs ACIT in ITA No. 485/2012 order dated 25.04.2014 " Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh Vs CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) " CIT Vs Rohit Anand (2010) 327 ITR 445 (Del) " CIT-IV Vs Devasan Investment (P.) Ltd. (2015) 229 Taxman 496 (SC) " CIT-IV Vs Devasan Investment (P.) Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 452 (Del) " CIT Vs Consolidated Finvest and Holding Ltd. (2011) 337 ITR 264 (Del.) 14. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the pres…

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ncome‘: i. CIT v. Gopal Purohit: 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) (SLP dismissed by SC at 334 ITR 308 (st.)) ii. Jindal Photo Investment Ltd.: 334 ITR 308 (St.) (SC) iii. CIT vs M/s Devasan Investments Pvt. Ltd.[2014]: SLP(C) No. 30606 of 2014 (SC) iv. CIT v. Rohit Anand: 327 ITR 445 (Del.) v. CIT v Consolidated Finvest and Holding Ltd (2011) 337 ITR 264 (Delhi) vi. CIT v. Avinash Jain : 214 Taxman 260 (Del) vii. CIT v. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd: 236 CTR 1 (Del) viii. CIT V. Ess Jay Enterprises (P) Limited: 173 Taxman 1 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Vinay Mittal: 208 Taxman 106 (Del.) (SLP Dismissed) x. CIT v. Suresh R. Shah: ITA No.…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MALVIKA INVESTMENTS & SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 123/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv

…stances of the case. The question of law is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is accordingly rejected.” (2) We also place reliance on the judgement of Honbél Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rohit Anand, 327 ITR 445 (Del.). 7. Respectfully following the judgement we uphold the order of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue. 8. In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29th September, 2016. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: the…

DARSHANA B. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 13(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 5462/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Darshana B. Doshi Acit, Circle-13(3), 31, Broach Street, Devraj 430, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th बनाम/ Ratanshi Marg, Iron Market, Floor, M.K. Marg, Vs. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai 400 020. Mumbai 400009. Pan. No. Aabpd7806Q (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 10(34)

…ion in CIT vs. Girish Mohan Ganeriwala (2003) 260 ITR 417 (P&H), CIT vs. S. Ramaamirtham (2008) 306 ITR 239 and CIT vs. Ess Jay Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2008) 173 Taxman 1 (Del) supports the case of the assessee. The ratio laid down in CIT vs. Rohit Anand (2010) 327 ITR 445 (Del) further supports the case of the assessee. In circular dt. 15th June, 2007 the CBDT has clarified that it is possible for a tax payer to have two portfolio, i.e., an investment portfolio and a trading portfolio and income under the head “capital gains” as well as “business income”. Though the main object is buying and selling of shares, but…

I.T.O WD - 44(4) ,KOLKATA, 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)

…e income was normal business profit referring to short period of retention and other factors which are missing in the case of appellant. It is further seen that the Appellant's case is squarely covered by the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Rohit Anand 327 ITR 445 and the Bombay High Court in CIT 25 Mumbai Vs. Gopal Purohit in 228 CTR 582 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the Department. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in the above decision that - "The Tribunal has observed in its judgment that the assessee has followed a consistent practi…

DCIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. CHHAYA D. PARIKH, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant on this issue

ITA 346/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit- 16(3), Smt. Chhaya D. Parikh, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 1808, Panchratna, Opera House, R.No. 206, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400004 Vs. Mumbai-400007 Pan: Aagpp2633Q

For Respondent: Shri Satyapal Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)

…taken into consideration for arriving at the conclusion that the appellant, is an investor, the same are not reproduced. However to name a few Janak S. Rangwalla vs. ACIT (11 SOT 627), CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom.)(2010), CIT Vs. Rohit Anand (2010) 327 ITR 445(Del),DCIT Vs. SMK Shares & Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 799/Mum/2009,Vinod K. Nevatia ITA No. 6556/Mum/2009 & 181/Mum/2010 and Naishadh V. Vachharajani ITA No. 6429/Mum/2009. 10. In view of the detailed discussion of the facts and considering the legal position the back ground of the amended provisions on taxation of capital gains on sale of s…