CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd.

100 ITR 706Supreme Court of India1975#1804 most cited

What is CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. authority for?

An investment retains its capital nature even if its resale was foreseen and contemplated when made, and the possibility of enhanced values motivated the investment. The classification as a capital asset or stock-in-trade depends on factors like the assessee's intention, frequency of transactions, and acquisition funding.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. · 100 ITR 706 · capital asset vs stock-in-trade · capital gains · business income · intention of assessee · foreseeability of resale · enhanced values · frequency of transactions · Section 112(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 112(1)Section 115BBESection 115JAASection 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

dividend distribution taxshort term capital gainsenduring benefitshort term capital gaincommercial expediencydisallowance under section 14afair market valueliable to taxnon-residentsection 28double taxationsection 115

Judgments citing CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd.

TULIKA KEDIA, NEW DELHI,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 147/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 147/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 271BSection 44A

…or this, attention is invited to the following judgements where this issue has been considered. (i) CIT v. PKN. and Co Ltd (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC) (ii) Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 242 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC) (iv) G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 1TR 594 (SC) Further, CBDT Circular No. 4/2007. dated 15-6-2007-Appendix II (Page no. 217) may also be referred to. 9 Tuleka Kedia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur (b) In case such transactions are for the purposes of investment and income/loss arising therefrom 1s to be comp…

OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

ITA 4777/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

…s have been acquired whether out of own funds\nor borrowed funds are also required to be examined in the light\nof intention of assessee in acquiring the shares. The Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply\nAgency Ltd., [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC), observed that a capital\nInvestment and resale do not lose their capital nature merely\nbecause the resale was foreseen and contemplated when the\ninvestment was made and the possibility of enhanced values\nmotivated the investment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\ncase of Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Limited Vs. CIT, 82\nITR 899, observ…

M/S. OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

ITA 4542/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

…hares have been acquired whether out of own funds or borrowed funds are also required to be examined in the light of intention of assessee in acquiring the shares. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd., [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC), observed that a capital Investment and resale do not lose their capital nature merely because the resale was foreseen and contemplated when the investment was made and the possibility of enhanced values motivated the investment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Limited Vs. CIT, 82 ITR 899, observed tha…

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

…transaction may have taken place a fairly long time before. The above observations find support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme I.T.A. No. 399/Jodh/2024 ACIT vs. Mukesh Shah 10 Court in the case of CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswamy Naidu vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594(SC) has observed that the certain factors are relevant for deciding the character of a transaction. These factors and their fulfilment in the case under reference was discussed by AO and the same is reproduced herein below:- Factors Applicability in the…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

…iving rental/royalty/dividend income, etc., it will qualify as 'capital asset'. Reference, in this regard, was drawn from the following decisions and CBDT circulars: Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh: 77 ITR 253 (SC) Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd: 100 ITR 706 (SC) Karam Chand Thapar& Bros. (P) Limited V. CIT: 82 ITR 899 (SC) PCIT v. Ramniwas Ramjivan Kasat: 248 taxman 484 (Guj.) PCIT v. Hardik Bharat Patel: ITA No. 390 of 2016 (Bom.) CIT vs Century Plyboard (1) Ltd.: ITA No. 83/2010 (Cal.) Circular No. 4 of 2007, dated 15.6.2007- CBDT. Circular No.6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 34. Ld. Sr. Counsel has also…

SHRI DILIP DEVJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRLCE-1(2) NOW THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 101/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 50C

…Year under consideration is 2009-10, so it is required past is to be seen and not a subsequent year. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of G. Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. vs. CIT 1959 Vol. XXXV 594 (SC) and CIT vs. Sutlej Cotton 100 ITR 706. Further regarding addition u/s 50C of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that without prejudice,/as alternate, value determined by Valuation Officer is not applicable in assessee’s case as the said report is u/s 50(c) of the Act and the provision of Section 50(c) of the Act is not applicable in assessee’s case as assessee has sold stock in trade and…

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ry purpose of the purchase. Further, though not necessary in view of it being a regular activity, even a solitary or an isolated transaction can be regarded as an adventure in the nature of trade (see, interalia, decisions at 35 ITR 594 (SC); 77 ITR 253 (SC); 100 ITR 706 (SC)). 6.3 The next question which emanates from the finding/s by the ld. CIT(A), under challenge before us, is if a land, even if agricultural, can be traded in so as to constitute ‘business’. We see no reason for it to be not so. The only thing that is relevant from the standpoint of the assessee, irrespective of the user to which it may have…

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

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

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…ion/investment, nature of business of the assessee and nature of transactions. Reliance was placed upon the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh 77 ITR 253 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. 100 ITR 706 (SC); and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. vs CIT 82 ITR 899 (SC). 81. To buttress the contention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified in the aforesaid judgement that the nature of asset, whether “stock in trade” or “capital asset” depends upon the intention with which the same was acquired i.e. with a view to deal/trade in same or to enj…

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

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

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…ion/investment, nature of business of the assessee and nature of transactions. Reliance was placed upon the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh 77 ITR 253 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. 100 ITR 706 (SC); and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. vs CIT 82 ITR 899 (SC). 81. To buttress the contention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified in the aforesaid judgement that the nature of asset, whether “stock in trade” or “capital asset” depends upon the intention with which the same was acquired i.e. with a view to deal/trade in same or to enj…

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…ng officer. The revenue has filed 2 volume of paper books containing 634 pages, made written submission on 16/4/2021 of 27 pages relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT versus Sutlej cotton Mills supply agency Ltd (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC) and the decision of the Honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Salora international Ltd 386 ITR 580 (Delhi) (2016) submitting that details of financial services business as claimed by the assessee of Aditya Birla Nuvo limited is merely a high sounding word and it is like an ordinary activity of fund management which is common in a…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…ng officer. The revenue has filed 2 volume of paper books containing 634 pages, made written submission on 16/4/2021 of 27 pages relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT versus Sutlej cotton Mills supply agency Ltd (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC) and the decision of the Honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Salora international Ltd 386 ITR 580 (Delhi) (2016) submitting that details of financial services business as claimed by the assessee of Aditya Birla Nuvo limited is merely a high sounding word and it is like an ordinary activity of fund management which is common in a…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. INTEGRATED SECURITIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1191/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145

…isive. The sale of shares was assessee’s ordinary line of business and therefore, the gains were to be treated as Business Income only. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (100 ITR 706) to support the same. Proceeding further, it was noted that entire sale had been made to a group concern namely M/s Integrated Enterprises India Ltd. (IEPL) through off-market trades. The shares of CUBL were sold at price of Rs.190/- per share as against prevailing market price of Rs.222/- per share. Accordingly, the difference of Rs.32/- per sha…

DILIP SANGOI,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri R.K. Singh, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA Nos.34 & 33/RPR/2021 A.Ys. 2016-17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Dilip Sangoi, vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Samta Colony Raipur. Ramsagar Para Raipur (CG) [PAN – AJGPS 3531 D] Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Arvind Sangoi, vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Ganjpara, Raipur. Ramsagar Para Raipur (CG) [PAN – AUCPS 4150 P] (Appellants) (Respondent) Appellants by : Shri Amit Maloo Jain, C.A. Respondent by : Shri R.K. Singh, CIT D.R. Date of hearing : 30.07.2021 Date…

ARVIND SANGOI,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri R.K. Singh, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA Nos.34 & 33/RPR/2021 A.Ys. 2016-17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Dilip Sangoi, vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Samta Colony Raipur. Ramsagar Para Raipur (CG) [PAN – AJGPS 3531 D] Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Arvind Sangoi, vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Ganjpara, Raipur. Ramsagar Para Raipur (CG) [PAN – AUCPS 4150 P] (Appellants) (Respondent) Appellants by : Shri Amit Maloo Jain, C.A. Respondent by : Shri R.K. Singh, CIT D.R. Date of hearing : 30.07.2021 Date…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE-7,, PUNE vs. M/S. ADRUS ESTATE AND PROPERTIES LLP,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 544/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.544/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Paridwala / Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendudas

…y with an intention to resell it at a profit, it would be a strong factor indicating that the transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade.” This position was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills 100 ITR 706 and Dalmiya Cements ITR 105 633. 15. It is an undisputed fact that the land was recorded in the books of account as part of investment. It is settled position that the treatment given in the books of account gives an indication as to the intention of the assessee to hold asset as an investment or stock-in trade. In the present case, the fact th…

BHARAT K SHETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4648/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2140/Mum/2002 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1527/Mum/2005 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2822/Mum/2006 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2747/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2749/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.8547/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2746/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 10. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4648/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 11. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2252/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) &

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala-Ld.Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Oommen Thorian -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…(A) and dismissed the grounds raised by the revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Kesavdas Ranchhod Das V/s CIT (1972) 83 ITR 1, the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT V/s Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 as well as Chainrup Sampatram V/s CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 while arriving at such a conclusion. The bench held that an inactivity or lull in the business of the assessee for some years cannot conclusively dislodge the claim of the assessee that it was carrying on the business of trading in shares. Further, the valuation of stock-in-trade was in conf…

BHARAT K SHETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2253/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2140/Mum/2002 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1527/Mum/2005 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2822/Mum/2006 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2747/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2749/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.8547/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2746/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 10. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4648/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 11. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2252/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) &

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala-Ld.Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Oommen Thorian -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…(A) and dismissed the grounds raised by the revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Kesavdas Ranchhod Das V/s CIT (1972) 83 ITR 1, the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT V/s Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 as well as Chainrup Sampatram V/s CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 while arriving at such a conclusion. The bench held that an inactivity or lull in the business of the assessee for some years cannot conclusively dislodge the claim of the assessee that it was carrying on the business of trading in shares. Further, the valuation of stock-in-trade was in conf…

GAIL (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-12,,

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 859/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 301/DEL/2006; 858 & 859/DEL/2006 [Assessment Years: 2000-01; 2001-02 & 2002-03] M/s GAIL (INDIA) LTD., VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-12, 16, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN : AAACG1209J) [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 24.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2020 Assessee by : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; Ms. Deepshree Rao, CA & Sh. Vibhu Gupta, CA Revenue by : Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR) ORDER P…

GAIL (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-12,,

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 858/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 301/DEL/2006; 858 & 859/DEL/2006 [Assessment Years: 2000-01; 2001-02 & 2002-03] M/s GAIL (INDIA) LTD., VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-12, 16, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN : AAACG1209J) [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 24.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2020 Assessee by : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; Ms. Deepshree Rao, CA & Sh. Vibhu Gupta, CA Revenue by : Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR) ORDER P…

MR. RAJAN MAHAJAN DGM (F&A) vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-12,,

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 301/DEL/2006[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 301/DEL/2006; 858 & 859/DEL/2006 [Assessment Years: 2000-01; 2001-02 & 2002-03] M/s GAIL (INDIA) LTD., VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-12, 16, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN : AAACG1209J) [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 24.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2020 Assessee by : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; Ms. Deepshree Rao, CA & Sh. Vibhu Gupta, CA Revenue by : Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR) ORDER P…

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4