CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd.

100 ITR 706Supreme Court of India1975#1783 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 366,314 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)
Read the full judgment

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.

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)

…e evidence. It would appear from the assessment order that payment was made for the shares in the month of July itself through bill accommodation facility. 4. Mr. Saraf relied upon a judgment in the case of CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). He drew our attention to the following finding recorded by the apex court (page 713) : "The finding of the High Court that the clauses of the memorandum of association, viz., clauses 10, 12, l3, 28 and 29 do not authorise the company to acquire and sell shares as business has no relevance in view of the aforesaid resolution of the assessee…

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)

…e evidence. It would appear from the assessment order that payment was made for the shares in the month of July itself through bill accommodation facility. 4. Mr. Saraf relied upon a judgment in the case of CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). He drew our attention to the following finding recorded by the apex court (page 713) : "The finding of the High Court that the clauses of the memorandum of association, viz., clauses 10, 12, l3, 28 and 29 do not authorise the company to acquire and sell shares as business has no relevance in view of the aforesaid resolution of the assessee…

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)

…e evidence. It would appear from the assessment order that payment was made for the shares in the month of July itself through bill accommodation facility. 4. Mr. Saraf relied upon a judgment in the case of CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). He drew our attention to the following finding recorded by the apex court (page 713) : "The finding of the High Court that the clauses of the memorandum of association, viz., clauses 10, 12, l3, 28 and 29 do not authorise the company to acquire and sell shares as business has no relevance in view of the aforesaid resolution of the assessee…

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)

…e evidence. It would appear from the assessment order that payment was made for the shares in the month of July itself through bill accommodation facility. 4. Mr. Saraf relied upon a judgment in the case of CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). He drew our attention to the following finding recorded by the apex court (page 713) : "The finding of the High Court that the clauses of the memorandum of association, viz., clauses 10, 12, l3, 28 and 29 do not authorise the company to acquire and sell shares as business has no relevance in view of the aforesaid resolution of the assessee…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Narendra J.Bhimani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 411/RJT/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)

…investment Intention is a relevant factor and unless it is off-set by the presence of other factors, it would raise a strong presumption that a transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade. 3] In the case of CIT vs Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. 100 ITR 706 hon'ble SC has laid down that "a single transaction can also constitute trade and it is not necessary fiat assessee must be indulging in the same trade or business frequently and continuously." Thus assessee's contention that he is not a habitual trader in land is CO No. 18/Rjt/2012 and ITA No. 411/Rjt/2012 Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 4 of 9 no…

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5845/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 133(6)

…ive proof, of trade. The intention to resell would, in conjunction with the conduct of the assessee and other ITA No. 5845/Del./2014 12 circumstances, point to the business character of the transactions. [CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC) and Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC)].Where a purchase is made with the intention of resale, it depends upon the conduct of the assessee and the circumstances of the case whether the venture is on capital account or in the nature of trade. A transaction is not necessarily in the nature of trade because the purchase was…

Shri S. Elango, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AYs 2012-13 &

ITA 3096/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 54F

…,000/- should be brought to tax as business profit. The AO During the assessment observed that , after large scale purchases of land the assessee has undertaken the activity of obtaining the necessary approval of the local authority/CMDA for his reported in 100 ITR 706, where in it was held that if the dominant intention of the assessee was to make profit by resale of assets and not to make an investment, as is exhibited in the assessee’s case, this exercise needs to be categorized as an adventure in the nature of trade only. Accordingly, the entire gains on this transaction of is treated as business profit…

Shri S. Elango, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AYs 2012-13 &

ITA 3095/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 54F

…,000/- should be brought to tax as business profit. The AO During the assessment observed that , after large scale purchases of land the assessee has undertaken the activity of obtaining the necessary approval of the local authority/CMDA for his reported in 100 ITR 706, where in it was held that if the dominant intention of the assessee was to make profit by resale of assets and not to make an investment, as is exhibited in the assessee’s case, this exercise needs to be categorized as an adventure in the nature of trade only. Accordingly, the entire gains on this transaction of is treated as business profit…

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

…e evidence. It would appear from the assessment order that payment was made for the shares in the month of July itself through bill accommodation facility. 4. Mr. Saraf relied upon a judgment in the case of CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). He drew our attention to the following finding recorded by the apex court (page 713) : "The finding of the High Court that the clauses of the memorandum of association, viz., clauses 10, 12, l3, 28 and 29 do not authorise the company to acquire and sell shares as business has no relevance in view of the aforesaid resolution of the assessee…

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

…issioner of Income Tax, Kerala, [1969] 73 ITR 735 16 Mahesh Kumar " Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin and Sons v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, [1968] 68 ITR 573 " Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur v M/s Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd., (1975) 100 ITR 706 (Supreme Court) " Commissioner of Income tax v Niraj Amidhar Surti (238 CTR 294) (HC-Gujarat) " Commissioner of Income Tax v Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, [1969] 73 ITR 652 (SC) " Income tax officer v Radha Birju Patel (ITAT - Mumbai) (ITA No.5382/Mum/ 2009) " Commissioner of Income tax v Trishul Investments Limited 305 ITR 434 (HC - Madras) " S Balan…

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

…83 ITR 377 (SC) CIT vs Amalgamations Pvt Ltd reported in 108 ITR 885 (Mad) CIT vs K.S.Venkatasubbaiah Reddiar reported in 221 ITR 18 (Mad) G.Venkataswami Naidu and Co. vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 594 (SC) CIT vs Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd reported in 100 ITR 706 (SC) Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 68 ITR 486 (SC) 5.7.3. The ld AR further heavily relied on the following case laws in support of his various contentions :- ITO vs Lyons & Roses Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 1148 & 1437/Kol/2009 dated 20.1.2016 (Kolkata Tribunal) DCIT vs The Diamond Co. LTd in iTA No. 16258/Kol/2010 for Asst Year…

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

…83 ITR 377 (SC) CIT vs Amalgamations Pvt Ltd reported in 108 ITR 885 (Mad) CIT vs K.S.Venkatasubbaiah Reddiar reported in 221 ITR 18 (Mad) G.Venkataswami Naidu and Co. vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 594 (SC) CIT vs Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd reported in 100 ITR 706 (SC) Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 68 ITR 486 (SC) 5.7.3. The ld AR further heavily relied on the following case laws in support of his various contentions :- ITO vs Lyons & Roses Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 1148 & 1437/Kol/2009 dated 20.1.2016 (Kolkata Tribunal) DCIT vs The Diamond Co. LTd in iTA No. 16258/Kol/2010 for Asst Year…

ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4243/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4303/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(3), बनाम/ 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl 1082 G (Assessee) : (Revenue) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4243/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Asst. Cit-6(3), Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl 1082 G (Revenue) (Assessee) : Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhatt : Shri S. R. Singh Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E. By The Assessee & The Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Vi, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’For Short) Dated 20.5.2009, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 31.12.2007 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06. 2

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITR (SC) 67; iv. CIT vs. P. K. N. Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 65 (SC); v. CIT vs. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 586 (SC); vi. G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (35 ITR 194); vii. CIT vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Limited (100 ITR 706); and viii. CIT vs. H. Hoick Larsen [1986] 160 ITR 67 (SC). However, for the sake of completeness of our order, we may analyse his findings and which remains undisputed or uncontroverted even before us: (a) Firstly, in terms of Accounting Standard-17 (AS-17), requiring it to report on its different business segments, clearly states to be dealin…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. Dreamland Build Tech P. Ltd

ITA/886/2015HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 143(3)

…a period between 10 days and 1 month was factually incorrect. The ITAT also had referred to a number of judgements of the Supreme Court including G. Venkateswami Naidu, Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) and CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC), Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Fraser (1942) 24 TC 498, Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Central) (I97I) 82 ITR 899 (SC). JTA Nos. 829/2015, 908/2015 & 886/2015 Page 5 of 7 o 10.The ITAT also referred to the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the ITAT in Sar…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -3 vs. Dreamland Build Tech P. Ltd

ITA/829/2015HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 143(3)

…a period between 10 days and 1 month was factually incorrect. The ITAT also had referred to a number of judgements of the Supreme Court including G. Venkateswami Naidu, Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) and CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC), Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Fraser (1942) 24 TC 498, Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Central) (I97I) 82 ITR 899 (SC). JTA Nos. 829/2015, 908/2015 & 886/2015 Page 5 of 7 o 10.The ITAT also referred to the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the ITAT in Sar…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 vs. Dreamland Build Tech P. Ltd

ITA/908/2015HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 143(3)

…a period between 10 days and 1 month was factually incorrect. The ITAT also had referred to a number of judgements of the Supreme Court including G. Venkateswami Naidu, Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) and CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC), Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Fraser (1942) 24 TC 498, Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Central) (I97I) 82 ITR 899 (SC). JTA Nos. 829/2015, 908/2015 & 886/2015 Page 5 of 7 o 10.The ITAT also referred to the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the ITAT in Sar…

ACIT, Circle - 31, Kolkata vs. Pradyumna Dalmia, Kolkata

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

ITA 1280/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

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 144ASection 14A

…2010-C-AM 13 Shri Pradyumna Dalmia assessment order that payment was made for the shares in the month of July itself through bill accommodation facility. 4. Mr. Saraf relied upon a judgment in the case of CfT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). He drew our attention to the following finding recorded by the apex court (page 713) : "The finding of the High Court that the clauses of the memorandum of association, viz., clauses 10, 12, l3, 28 and 29 do not authorise the company to acquire and sell shares as business has no relevance in view of the aforesaid resolution of the assessee…

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

…shares in the month of July itself through bill accommodation facility. ITA Nos. 1148/K09, CO No. 52/K/09 & 1437/K/09C-AM 15 M/s. Lypons & Roses Pvt. Ltd 4. Mr. Saraf relied upon a judgment in the case of CfT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). He drew our attention to the following finding recorded by the apex court (page 713) : "The finding of the High Court that the clauses of the memorandum of association, viz., clauses 10, 12, l3, 28 and 29 do not authorise the company to acquire and sell shares as business has no relevance in view of the aforesaid resolution of the assessee…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…to conclude that assessee was an investor only. For the purpose, the Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of Apex Court In the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd v/s CIT (1971) 82 !TR 363 (SC) and CIT v/s Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agencies Ltd (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC). (e) The period of holding, delivery base trading and the claim that assessee was Investing only in listed share activities was not relevant because the decision of holding the shares up to a particular time was purely a business decision with an Intent to maximize profits from such 9 Smt. Sarah Faisal Hawa share trading activity. (f) The…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4751/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…to conclude that assessee was an investor only. For the purpose, the Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of Apex Court In the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd v/s CIT (1971) 82 !TR 363 (SC) and CIT v/s Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agencies Ltd (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC). (e) The period of holding, delivery base trading and the claim that assessee was Investing only in listed share activities was not relevant because the decision of holding the shares up to a particular time was purely a business decision with an Intent to maximize profits from such 9 Smt. Sarah Faisal Hawa share trading activity. (f) The…