CIT v. S. Ramaamirtham

306 ITR 239High Court2008#12599 most cited
8

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

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Ramaamirtham

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

…l.)  CIT v. Avinash Jain : 362 ITR 441 (Del)  CIT v. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd: 236 CTR 1 (Del)  CIT v. Ess Jay Enterprises (P) Limited: 173 Taxman 1 (Del.)  Pace Industries Ltd. for A.Y. 2000-01 in ITA No.1106/Del/2004 (Del)  CIT vs. S. Ramaamirtham: 306 ITR 239 (Mad.)  CIT v. Trish Investments Ltd..: 305 ITR 434 (Mad).  CIT v. N.S.S. Investment Pvt. Ltd.: 277 ITR 149 (Mad)  Arjun Kapur vs. DCIT: 70 ITD 161 (Del.)  Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. v. DCIT: 106 ITD 1 (Del.)  Gomti Credits (P) Limited v. DCIT: 100 TTJ 1132 (Del).  Ashish Chaudhary v. ITO : ITA No. 5227/Del./2014 (Del. ITAT) In the light of…

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

…l.)  CIT v. Avinash Jain : 362 ITR 441 (Del)  CIT v. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd: 236 CTR 1 (Del)  CIT v. Ess Jay Enterprises (P) Limited: 173 Taxman 1 (Del.)  Pace Industries Ltd. for A.Y. 2000-01 in ITA No.1106/Del/2004 (Del)  CIT vs. S. Ramaamirtham: 306 ITR 239 (Mad.)  CIT v. Trish Investments Ltd..: 305 ITR 434 (Mad).  CIT v. N.S.S. Investment Pvt. Ltd.: 277 ITR 149 (Mad)  Arjun Kapur vs. DCIT: 70 ITD 161 (Del.)  Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. v. DCIT: 106 ITD 1 (Del.)  Gomti Credits (P) Limited v. DCIT: 100 TTJ 1132 (Del).  Ashish Chaudhary v. ITO : ITA No. 5227/Del./2014 (Del. ITAT) In the light of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 32(3), Mumbai vs. Sagar Construction, Mumbai

ITA 5270/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit 32(3) M/S Sagar Construction Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, Vs. C-402, Gokul Divine, Irla, S.V. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Road, Vile Parle (W), Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai - 400 056 Pan No. Aagfs8539N (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ly to third type of transaction, profit on which was offered under the head capital gains. In support of the proposition that investment can be liable to tax only under the head capital gains, reliance was placed in the case of CIT Vs. S. Ramaamirtham, (2008) 306 ITR 239 (Mad). Reliance was also placed on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gopal Purohit, 122 TTJ 87 (Mum), wherein it was held that profit arising from such transaction should not be treated as income from business and profession. It was further submitted by ld.AR that the Tribunal has dealt with each and every aspect of tran…

Shri Krishna Shriram, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 866/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263Section 56Section 69

…whether it is capital asset or business asset (stock-in-trade). The appellant has also cited the judgement of Bombay, Madras, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the following cases: 1) CIT vs. Girish Mohan Ganeriwale 260 ITR 417(P & H) 2) CIT vs. Ramaamirtham 306 ITR 239 (Mad.) 3) CTR vs. Gopal Purohit 228 ITR 582 (Mum) To state that where it had been accepted as capital gains in the earlier years, the same cannot be treated as stock-in-trade in the subsequent years. In view of the above discussion, the detailed factors and past history of the appellant, it is seen that the appellant’s intention was to hold the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Krishna Shriram, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1417/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263Section 56Section 69

…whether it is capital asset or business asset (stock-in-trade). The appellant has also cited the judgement of Bombay, Madras, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the following cases: 1) CIT vs. Girish Mohan Ganeriwale 260 ITR 417(P & H) 2) CIT vs. Ramaamirtham 306 ITR 239 (Mad.) 3) CTR vs. Gopal Purohit 228 ITR 582 (Mum) To state that where it had been accepted as capital gains in the earlier years, the same cannot be treated as stock-in-trade in the subsequent years. In view of the above discussion, the detailed factors and past history of the appellant, it is seen that the appellant’s intention was to hold the…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Sunil G Raheja, Mumbai

ITA 3539/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjape & Shri K. Gopal-ARFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-DR
Section 143Section 2Section 254(1)

…been valued at cost and treated as investment, that he had incurred losses on similar transactions and had not claimed such losses as business loss. He relied upon the cases of Gopal Purohit (228 CTR 582), Ketha Kumar A.Shah (242 ITR 83) and S. Ramaathirtham (306 ITR 239) and argued that entire amount of Rs.1.87 crores was to be treated as STCG. After considering the submission of the assessee and the assessment order, the FAA held that the reasons given by the AO to treat the STCG as business income were generic in nature, that STCG income had arisen from the transaction in only 25 scrips as against 49 stated b…

Navinchandra N . Majithia, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…herefore, this contention of the ld. Assessing Officer cannot be said to be justified. We find that the case of the assessee is covered in his favour by the ratio laid down in CIT vs Trishul Investment Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 434 (Mad.), CIT vs Ramamirtham (2008) 306 ITR 239 (Mad.), CIT vs N.S. S. Investment Pvt. Ltd. 277 ITR 149 (Mad.), CIT vs Jubilant Security Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 445 (Del.), Janak S. Rangwala vs ACIT 11 SOT 627 (Mum.), Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2008) 5 DTR (Mum) 29 Shri Navinchandra N. Majithia 401, CIT vs Gopal Purohit (2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.)(SLP dismissed by Supreme Cour…

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)

…y of assessee of purchase and sale of shares as business particularly when no money has been borrowed for making investment in shares. In such a situation the decision 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 p…

CIT v. S. Ramaamirtham (306 ITR 239) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax