CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopany

230 ITR 679High Court1998#6316 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopany authority for?

The onus of proving that the conditions for taxability are met is on the revenue. Specifically, the revenue must demonstrate an understatement of consideration, rather than requiring the assessee to prove a negative.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopany · section 66 · burden of proof · understatement of consideration · revenue onus · taxability · K.P. Varghese · evidence · income tax

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 68Section 69ASection 132

Issues it is cited on

section 66rejection of books of accountsection 145section 145(3)liable to taxsection 115bbsection 115bcross objectiondouble taxationincome-tax officerunexplained moneysection 23

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopany

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SUDHARSHNA ARORA, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1185/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1185 /Del./2010, A.Y. 2004-05 Ito, Vs Smt. Sudharshna Arora Ward-24(4), . B-6/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaepa8154H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ls Ltd. v. CIT, (1965) 58 ITR 795 (Mad); Das & Co.v. CIT, (1962) 45 ITR 369 (Pat); Patiala Biscuit Manufacturers P.Ltd.v. CIT, (1976) 103 ITR 208, 216-7 (Punj); Marghabhai Kishabhai Patel & Co.v.CIT, (1977) 108 ITR 54 (Guj); CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopany, (1998) 230 ITR 679,682 (Cal)" The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 131 ITR 597 observed as under: - "It is a well settled rule of law that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the Revenue and the burden lies on the Revenue to show that there is an understatement of…

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…take place of reality refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (261 ITR 775(SC), Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs CIT (26 ITR 736 (SC), Omar Salary Mohanmedsait Vs CIT (37 ITR 151) (SC), Lekchabnd Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs CIT (37 ITR 285) (SC), CIT Vs Nandini C. (1989) 230 ITR 679, 689 (Cal). 3(iii) Further, the assessment order also undoubtedly speaks that no show cause notice for invoking the provision of section 115 BBE has been issued by the learned AO. As it is a settled legal mandatory requirement that the learned AO has to issue a specific show cause notice to this effect asking to the assessee as to why the income…

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…th Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab (1944) 12 I.T.R. 393” Also refer DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 736 (SC), Omar Salary MohanmedSait v CIT (37 ITR 151) (SC), Lekchabnd Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37 ITR 285) (SC), CIT v Nandini C. (1989) 230 ITR 679, 689 (Cal). 16. On perusal of the assessment order it is revealed that the Ld. AO did not disturb the Net Profit as deduced/declared by the Books of Accounts as followed by Audited Financial statement but making addition on the basis of Cash deposited to that extent and duly recorded in the Books of Accounts therefore this act of the Ld. AO has l…

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…th Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab (1944) 12 I.T.R. 393” Also refer DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 736 (SC), Omar Salary MohanmedSait v CIT (37 ITR 151) (SC), Lekchabnd Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37 ITR 285) (SC), CIT v Nandini C. (1989) 230 ITR 679, 689 (Cal). 17. On perusal of the assessment order it is revealed that the Ld. AO did not disturb the Net Profit as deduced/declared by the Books of Accounts as followed by Audited Financial statement but making addition on the basis of Cash deposited to that extent and duly recorded in the Books of Accounts therefore this act of the Ld. AO many…

ESSAR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…td (66 ITR 622) (SC) • GIT v Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co (87 ITR 407) (SC) • K.P. Varghese v. /TO [19811131 ITR 597 (SC) • CIT v. Shivakami Company P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 71 (SC) • CITv. P. Suryanaryana [1973] 88 ITR 321 (Mad) • CIT v.Smt. Nandini Nopany [1998] 230 ITR 679 (Cal) • CITv. G.C. Sen Gupta [1996] 220 ITR 254 (Gau) 10.5 Further, in this regard, your Honour’s attention is invited to the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer for AY 2008-09, wherein the AO has recomputed the capital loss on sale of VEL shares. A copy of the rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act is attached at Annexure M. 1…

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

ITA 1809/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Parin ShahFor Respondent: 17.09.2019
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

…After hearing both the parties and perusing the record we find that ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by holding that the case of the assesseeis squarely covered by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Smt. NandiniNopany (230 ITR 679), the relevant portion of which reads as under:- "The genuineness of the transaction of the sale and purchase of the shares between the assessee and VishwaMangal Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., has not been doubted by the Assessing Officer. This has not even been questioned by the Department. It is not disputed that the assessee had transferred those sha…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INSTNAT HOLDINGS PRIVATE LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5627/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5627/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Dcit-14(2)(1) M/S. Instant Holdings Pvt.Ltd. बनाम/ 432, Aaykar Bhavan 213, Bezzola Complex 4Th Floor, M.K. Road “B” Wing 71, Sion Trombay Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Chembur, Mumbai-400 071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacck-5600-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Awungshi Gimson- Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Mohan - Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 28/06/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Mohan - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 391

…first appellate authority at page 21 of his order has rightly observed that, what in fact never accrued or was never received cannot be computed as capital gain. He relied on the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopani [1998] 230 ITR 679 . He rightly held that it is manifest that the consideration for the transfer of capital asset is what the transferor receives, in lieu of assets he parts with, i.e., money or monies worth and that the expression 'full consideration' cannot be construed as having reference to the market value of the assets transferred but refers to the price barg…

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3462/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…fter hearing both the parties and perusing the record we find that ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by holding that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Nandini Nopany (230 ITR 679), the relevant portion of which reads as under:- "The genuineness of the transaction of the sale and purchase of the shares between the assessee and Vishwa Mangal Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., has not been doubted by the Assessing Officer. This has not even been questioned by the Department. It is not disputed that the assessee had transferred those sha…

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…fter hearing both the parties and perusing the record we find that ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by holding that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Nandini Nopany (230 ITR 679), the relevant portion of which reads as under:- "The genuineness of the transaction of the sale and purchase of the shares between the assessee and Vishwa Mangal Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., has not been doubted by the Assessing Officer. This has not even been questioned by the Department. It is not disputed that the assessee had transferred those sha…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UMIL SHARE & STOCK BROKING LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 303/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Acit/Dcit, Circle-6(2) V/S. M/S Usha Martin Ventures Aayakar Bhawan, 6Thfloor, Ltd., 24, R.N. Mukherjee Room No.6/15, P-7, Road, Kolkata-700001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] Kolkat-700069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)

…ice less than the book value. In our view this observation of the AO does not make the transaction as colourable device to reduce the tax burden. We are also relying in the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopany (1998) 230 ITR 679 (Cal), wherein the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held:- ‘Upon consideration of all the above facts and also the question that the market value of the shares transferred by the assessee was Rs.20,67,876, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee regarding the transfer of shares and added the difference between the amoun…

ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. USHA MARTIN VENTURES LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 199/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Acit/Dcit, Circle-6(2) V/S. M/S Usha Martin Ventures Aayakar Bhawan, 6Thfloor, Ltd., 24, R.N. Mukherjee Room No.6/15, P-7, Road, Kolkata-700001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] Kolkat-700069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)

…ice less than the book value. In our view this observation of the AO does not make the transaction as colourable device to reduce the tax burden. We are also relying in the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopany (1998) 230 ITR 679 (Cal), wherein the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held:- ‘Upon consideration of all the above facts and also the question that the market value of the shares transferred by the assessee was Rs.20,67,876, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee regarding the transfer of shares and added the difference between the amoun…

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 805/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rge Henderson and Co. Ltd., 66 ITR 622 SC; 4. CIT Vs. Shivakami Co.P.Ltd., SC 159 ITR 0071; 5. Rupees Finance & Management Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Mumbai, ITAT (2008) 27 CCH 0111 Mum Trib. (2008) 119 TTJ 0643; 6. CIT Vs. Smt. Nandini Nopany, Calcutta High Court (1998) 230 ITR 679 (Cal); 7. Bombay high Court, CIT Vs. M/s.Morarjee Textiles Ltd.” 55. He further contended that the ld.AO has tried his best to shift the date of transfer from the assessment year 2012-13 to 2013-14 in order to take benefit of section 50D for adopting fair market value of the assets as sale consideration. He pointed out that applicability of sect…

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2744/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rge Henderson and Co. Ltd., 66 ITR 622 SC; 4. CIT Vs. Shivakami Co.P.Ltd., SC 159 ITR 0071; 5. Rupees Finance & Management Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Mumbai, ITAT (2008) 27 CCH 0111 Mum Trib. (2008) 119 TTJ 0643; 6. CIT Vs. Smt. Nandini Nopany, Calcutta High Court (1998) 230 ITR 679 (Cal); 7. Bombay high Court, CIT Vs. M/s.Morarjee Textiles Ltd.” 55. He further contended that the ld.AO has tried his best to shift the date of transfer from the assessment year 2012-13 to 2013-14 in order to take benefit of section 50D for adopting fair market value of the assets as sale consideration. He pointed out that applicability of sect…

MADHU SARDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

ITA 7410/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Mrs. Madhu Sarda , 38,Vikas Center, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 Pan: Aajps 5135R Appellant/ Assessee Versus Income Tax Officer, -19(4) Mumbai Respondent/ Revenue

For Respondent: Sh. V. Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…appellate authority at page 21 of his order has rightly observed that, what in fact never accrued or was never received cannot be computed as capital gain. He relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Nandini Nopani (1998) 230 ITR 679. He rightly held that it is manifest that the consideration for the transfer of capital asset is what the transferor receives, in lieu of assets he parts with, i.e. money or monies worth and that the expression 'full consideration' cannot be construed as having reference to the market value of the assets transferred but refers to the price bargai…

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

…V. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. 66 ITR 622 (SC) (heavy reliance was placed on this decision) • CIT V. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.: 87 ITR 407 (SC) • K. P. Varghese v. ITO: 131 ITR 597 (SC) • CIT v. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. 159 ITR 71 (SC) • CIT v. NandiniNopany: 230 ITR 679 (Cal.) • CIT v. Ms. Sushila Mittal & Others: 250 ITR 531 (Del.) • CIT V. Kami Singh 256 ITR 165 (Del) • CIT V. Smt. Sushila Devi 256 ITR 179 (Del.) • CIT v. Nilofer I. Singh: 309 ITR 233 (Delhi) • CIT v. Nilofer I Singh :309 ITR 233 (Del.) • Dev Kumar Jain v. ITO : 309 ITR 240 (Del.) • Sanjay Chawla v. ITO: 89 ITD 586 (Del.) • Bigjos Stores (P) L…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4342/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…ion reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements. K.P. Varghese vs. Income-tax Officer [1981] 7 TAXMAN 13 (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 25 TAXMAN 80K (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Nandini Nopany [1998] 230 ITR 679 (CAL.) identical with the facts of the appellant’s case. Therefore the ratio of the said judgments is squarely applicable to the appellant’s case. Hence the long term capital gain estimated by the ASSESSING OFFICER by substituting the sale price with NAV as against the actual sale price of Rs. 10/- per share of Diwakar Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Monis…

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3846/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…ion reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements. K.P. Varghese vs. Income-tax Officer [1981] 7 TAXMAN 13 (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 25 TAXMAN 80K (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Nandini Nopany [1998] 230 ITR 679 (CAL.) identical with the facts of the appellant’s case. Therefore the ratio of the said judgments is squarely applicable to the appellant’s case. Hence the long term capital gain estimated by the ASSESSING OFFICER by substituting the sale price with NAV as against the actual sale price of Rs. 10/- per share of Diwakar Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Monis…

USHA MARTIN VENTURES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 847/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 48Section 50(2)

…rice less than the book value. In our view this observation of the AO does not make the transaction as colorable device to reduce the tax burden. We are also relying in the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopany (1998) 230 ITR 679 (Cal), where the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held:- “Upon consideration of all the above facts and also the question that the market value of the shares transferred by the assessee was Rs.20,67,876, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee regarding the transfer of shares and added the difference between the amount…

CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopany (230 ITR 679) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax