CIT v. S. Ramamirtham

217 CTR 206High Court2008#8873 most cited

What is CIT v. S. Ramamirtham authority for?

The intention of the assessee is relevant in determining whether shares are held for trading or investment purposes.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S. Ramamirtham · shares · trading · investment · intention of assessee · business income · capital gains

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Ramamirtham

Raguvalika Trading Pvt Ltd ( Since Merged With M.M.Murarka Share & Securities Pvt Ltd), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 851/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

…s at the time of each transaction i.e. at the time of purchase itself. This practice has not been found fault by the revenue in the earlier assessment years even in scrutiny proceedings. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Ramamirtham[2008] 217 CTR 206 while distinguishing trading and investment, observed that the intention of the assessee is relevant to determine whether an assessee is carrying on the business in shares or investments. The initial intention of the assessee in the instant case is proved beyond doubt from the manner of maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. (1) for investment…

Raguvalika Trading Pvt Ltd ( Since Merged With M.M.Murarka Share & Securities Pvt Ltd), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 850/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

…s at the time of each transaction i.e. at the time of purchase itself. This practice has not been found fault by the revenue in the earlier assessment years even in scrutiny proceedings. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Ramamirtham[2008] 217 CTR 206 while distinguishing trading and investment, observed that the intention of the assessee is relevant to determine whether an assessee is carrying on the business in shares or investments. The initial intention of the assessee in the instant case is proved beyond doubt from the manner of maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. (1) for investment…

Raguvalika Trading Pvt Ltd ( Since Merged With M.M.Murarka Share & Securities Pvt Ltd), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 849/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

…s at the time of each transaction i.e. at the time of purchase itself. This practice has not been found fault by the revenue in the earlier assessment years even in scrutiny proceedings. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Ramamirtham[2008] 217 CTR 206 while distinguishing trading and investment, observed that the intention of the assessee is relevant to determine whether an assessee is carrying on the business in shares or investments. The initial intention of the assessee in the instant case is proved beyond doubt from the manner of maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. (1) for investment…

Raguvalika Trading Pvt Ltd ( Since Merged With M.M.Murarka Share & Securities Pvt Ltd), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 848/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

…s at the time of each transaction i.e. at the time of purchase itself. This practice has not been found fault by the revenue in the earlier assessment years even in scrutiny proceedings. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Ramamirtham[2008] 217 CTR 206 while distinguishing trading and investment, observed that the intention of the assessee is relevant to determine whether an assessee is carrying on the business in shares or investments. The initial intention of the assessee in the instant case is proved beyond doubt from the manner of maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. (1) for investment…

Income Tax Officer-Ward-31(3), Kolkata vs. Dilip B Besai (HUF), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2799/KOL/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2017AY 2006-2007

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

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shah, FCA
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…t the time of each transaction i.e. at the time of purchase itself. This practice has not been found fault by the revenue in the earlier assessment years even in scrutiny proceedings. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Rammaamirthan [2008] 217 CTR 206 while distinguishing trading and investment, observed that the intention of the assessee is relevant to determine whether an assessee is carrying on the business in shares or investments. The initial intention of the assessee in the instant case is proved beyond doubt from the manner of maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. (1) for investment…

DCIT, Circle - 10, 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

…f each transaction i.e. at the time of purchase itself. This practice has not been found fault by the revenue in the earlier assessment years even in scrutiny proceedings. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Rammaamirtham reported in (2008) 217 CTR 206 (Mad) while distinguishing trading and investment, observed that the intention of the assessee is relevant to determine whether an assessee is carrying on the business in shares or investments. The initial intention of the assessee in the instant case is proved beyond doubt from the manner of maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. (1) for inves…

DCIT, Circle - 10, 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

…f each transaction i.e. at the time of purchase itself. This practice has not been found fault by the revenue in the earlier assessment years even in scrutiny proceedings. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Rammaamirtham reported in (2008) 217 CTR 206 (Mad) while distinguishing trading and investment, observed that the intention of the assessee is relevant to determine whether an assessee is carrying on the business in shares or investments. The initial intention of the assessee in the instant case is proved beyond doubt from the manner of maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. (1) for inves…

M/S. Loknath Saraf Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 6, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 418/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A & A.K. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aroop Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…1 ITA No.300-418/Kol/2011, AY 2006-07 Lokenath Saraf Securities Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri N. V. Vasudevan, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 300/Kol/2011 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Lokenath Saraf Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-6, Kolkata. (PAN: AAACL4567A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No. 418/Kol/2011 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Lokenath Saraf Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-6, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 18.07.2016 Date of pronouncement: 03.08.2016 For the Reve…

DCIT, Circle - 6 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Lokenath Saraf Securities Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 300/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A & A.K. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aroop Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…1 ITA No.300-418/Kol/2011, AY 2006-07 Lokenath Saraf Securities Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri N. V. Vasudevan, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 300/Kol/2011 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Lokenath Saraf Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-6, Kolkata. (PAN: AAACL4567A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No. 418/Kol/2011 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Lokenath Saraf Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-6, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 18.07.2016 Date of pronouncement: 03.08.2016 For the Reve…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. Trisys on the Net Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1547/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)

…td. Page 6 one for investment purposes and one for trading purposes when he converted his stock in trade into investment on dated 1.4.2004. 6.1 We are putting our reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S.Ramamrithan (2008) 217 CTR 206 (Mad), while distinguishing trading and investment, observed that the intention of the assessee is relevant to determine whether an assessee is carrying on the business in shares or investments. The initial intention of the assessee in the instant case is proved beyond doubt from the manner of maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. (1) for inve…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. H.K. Financiers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1526/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Patodi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N o n e
Section 143(3)

…terprises Ltd (ITAT No. 944/Kol/2008 dt. 3.1.2008) and host of other important case laws mentioned as under for deciding this issue: CIT V. H. Holck Larsen (1986) 160 ITR 67 (SC) CIT V. Rewashankar A Kothari (2006) 201 CTR 510 (Guj) CIT V. Ramamrithans (2008) 217 CTR 206 (Mad) CIT V. Associated Industrial Development Co. Ltd. (SC) 82 ITR 586 Janak S. Rangwalla V. ACIT (2007) 11 SOT 627 (Mum. Trib.) CIT V. N.S.S. Investments P. Ltd. (2005) 277 ITR 149 (Mad) Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. V. ITO (220) 115 TTJ 639 (Mum. Trib.) Gopal Purohit V. JCIT, 25(3), Mumbai (2009) 29 SOT 117 (Mum.Trib.) Sarnath Infrastructure P. Ltd. V.…

ITO, Ward - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lyons & Roses Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1148/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr. Advocate &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…me of each transaction i.e at the time of purchase itself. This practice has not been found fault by the revenue in the earlier assessment years even in scrutiny proceedings. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs S.Ramamrithan reported in (2008) 217 CTR 206 (Mad) while distinguishing trading and investment, observed that the intention of the assessee is relevant to determine whether an assessee is carrying on the business in shares or investments. The initial intention of the assessee in the instant case is proved beyond doubt from the manner of maintaining two separate portfolios i.e (1) for invest…

CIT v. S. Ramamirtham (217 CTR 206) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax