CIT v. Trishul Investments Ltd.

305 ITR 434High Court2008#4566 most cited

What is CIT v. Trishul Investments Ltd. authority for?

Interest paid on loans borrowed for the purpose of investment in shares is allowed as part of the cost of acquisition eligible for deduction while computing capital gains under Section 48. The intention of the assessee at the time of acquisition of shares determines the nature of the gain.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Trishul Investments Ltd. · Section 48 · cost of acquisition · interest on borrowed funds · shares · capital gains · period of holding · speculative transaction · intention of assessee

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 48Section 115JBSection 250Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 71(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 43(5)speculative transactionshort term capital gainsperiod of holdingsection 10(34)short term capital gainsection 48section 45section 271brule of consistencysection 36(1)(iii)disallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing CIT v. Trishul Investments Ltd.

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

…. 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 the aforesaid legal position, it is clear that the n…

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

…. 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 the aforesaid legal position, it is clear that the n…

INCLINE REALTY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 112/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Incline Realty Private Limited Commerz, 3rd Floor, International Business Park, Oberoi Garden City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400063. Maharashtra. [PAN:AADCI5238A] …………. Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai Room No.419, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta For the Respondent/Department : Ms. Vranda Matkari…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. BARINDRA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2606/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant , Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 48

…Sadanand Hoskote (supra). However we notice in a subsequent decision by the coordinate bench in the Shri Fritz D Silva (supra), the coordinate bench has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Trishul Investments Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 434 to hold that the interest on loans borrowed for the purpose investment in shares are to be allowed as part of cost of acquisition eligible for deduction while computing the capital gains. The relevant observations of the coordinate bench is extracted here under – “3. We have considered the rival stands. The controversy before us is as to whether…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. BARINDRA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2605/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant , Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 48

…Sadanand Hoskote (supra). However we notice in a subsequent decision by the coordinate bench in the Shri Fritz D Silva (supra), the coordinate bench has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Trishul Investments Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 434 to hold that the interest on loans borrowed for the purpose investment in shares are to be allowed as part of cost of acquisition eligible for deduction while computing the capital gains. The relevant observations of the coordinate bench is extracted here under – “3. We have considered the rival stands. The controversy before us is as to whether…

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FRONTLINE REALTY PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7472/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…s for the reason that the expenditure incurred subsequent to the purchase of assets cannot be considered as ‘cost of acquisition’. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trishul Investments Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 434 (Mad), wherein it was held that the interest paid for acquisition of shares would amount to cost of shares and was to be capitalized with the cost of acquisition of shares. The assessee also relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Neera Jain vs. ACIT, Circle-12(3), Mumbai in ITA No. 1861/Mum/2009 vide order dated 23.03.20…

LAKSHMANAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2744/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2882/Chny/2018 & नि◌धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, No.7/2, 1St Floor, Akm Nest, Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Jawaharlal Nehru Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpl 4326 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 43(5)Section 45

…there was no delivery of securities. Hence, in view of the above facts, the AO had rightly hell the impugned transactions as adventure in the nature of trade. The appellant assessee has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High 'Court in 305 ITR 434 wherein it was held that whether there was intention to make trading or hold the shares as investment, no single factor conclusive or decisive should be considered but the host of other factors should also be taken into account. 8. In the present case of the appellant assessee also, the AO has taken into account all the relevant factors and the…

LAKSHMANAN REVATHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO N.C.W 1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2883/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2882/Chny/2018 & नि◌धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, No.7/2, 1St Floor, Akm Nest, Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Jawaharlal Nehru Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpl 4326 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 43(5)Section 45

…there was no delivery of securities. Hence, in view of the above facts, the AO had rightly hell the impugned transactions as adventure in the nature of trade. The appellant assessee has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High 'Court in 305 ITR 434 wherein it was held that whether there was intention to make trading or hold the shares as investment, no single factor conclusive or decisive should be considered but the host of other factors should also be taken into account. 8. In the present case of the appellant assessee also, the AO has taken into account all the relevant factors and the…

LAKSHMANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO N.C.W 1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2882/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2882/Chny/2018 & नि◌धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, No.7/2, 1St Floor, Akm Nest, Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Jawaharlal Nehru Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpl 4326 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 43(5)Section 45

…there was no delivery of securities. Hence, in view of the above facts, the AO had rightly hell the impugned transactions as adventure in the nature of trade. The appellant assessee has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High 'Court in 305 ITR 434 wherein it was held that whether there was intention to make trading or hold the shares as investment, no single factor conclusive or decisive should be considered but the host of other factors should also be taken into account. 8. In the present case of the appellant assessee also, the AO has taken into account all the relevant factors and the…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI vs. KANWAL MOHAN SINGH SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 500/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 24Section 43Section 48Section 54

…T vs. Shri Fritz D. Silva in ITA No. 236/Mum/2010 dated 8.5.2015 overruled its earlier decision in Macintosh Finance Estates Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Ld. AO, following the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Trishul Investments Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 434 (Mad.). The Ld. AR further submitted that Explanation 8 to section 43 of the Act is not at all applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case. 8.1 On careful consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the material on records, we have come to the conclusion that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Delhi SMC Bench of the T…

M/S GENERAL AERODYNAMICS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S General Aerodynamics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer-2(1)(2), Ali Chambers, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Room No. 543, Aayakar Mumbai-400023. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate-400021. Pan No. Aabcg 4629 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mrs. Smita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/07/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Smita Nair, DR
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…long with the value of the investment. In support, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court e relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court e relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Trishul Investment 305 ITR 434 Trishul Investment 305 ITR 434 and decision of the and decision of the Tribunal Mumbai bench Mumbai bench in the case of DCIT vs. Sh Fritz D Silva in Sh Fritz D Silva in ITA No. 236/Mum/2010. 8. The Ld. DR on the other on the other hand relied on finding of lower finding of lower authorities and submitted that assessee has failed to justify as th…

ZUARI INVESTEMENTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 27(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4854/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhary(Through Video Conferencing) Zuari Investments Ltd., Vs. Ito Plot No.2, Zamrudpur Ward – 27(4), Community Centre, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi-110 048

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s shares. He further placed reliance on the decision of Bombay Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Fritz Desilva in ITA No.236/Mum/2010 for A.Y. 2005-06, CIT vs. Maithreyi Pai reported in (1985) 152 ITR 247 (Kar.) and CIT vs. Trishul Investments Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 434 (Mad.). He therefore submitted that the ratio of the aforesaid decisions squarely applies to the case of the assessee and therefore indexed cost on account of acquisition be allowed. 7. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The…

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2018/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…case of Mithilesh Kumar (92 ITR 9), accepted the contention of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer filed appeal before the Tribunal. After considering rival contentions and judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Trishul Investments Ltd. (305 ITR 434), the Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A). The relevant observations of the Tribunal are extracted below: "3. We have considered the rival stands. The controversy before us is as to whether the interest paid by the assessee on loans taken for acquiring the shares in the past can be allowed as a deduction u/s 48 as cost of acquisitio…

I-VEN MEDICARE INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for all years under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT
Section 234C

…Vs Bagmane Developers (P)Ltd., (2017) 88 Taxmnn.com 105(Pune-Trib.) 6 Suresh Babulal Shah(HUF) Vs DCIT (2016) 75 Taxmann.com 105 (Pune- Trib.) 7 ACIT Vs Jignesh Madhukant Mehta (2017) 83 Taxmann.com 349 (Mumbi- Trib.) 8 CIT Vs Trishul Investments LTd. (2008) 305 ITR 434(Mad-HC) 9 CIT Vs Distributors (Baroda) (P)Ltd. (1972) 83 ITR 377 (SC) 10 G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co., Vs CIT (1959) 36 ITR 594(SC) 11 CIT Vs Hindustan Industrial Agencies P.Ltd., 12 CIT Vs Gopal Purohit (2011) 336 ITR 287 13 Gopal Purohit Vs JCIT (2009) 122 TTJ 0087 14 Copy of Circular No.6/2016 dated 29-02-2016 15 Copy of Circular 225/12/2016 dat…

HORIZON ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD-25(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3469/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 48

…he cost of the property which has to be allowed in the computation of capital gain under the provisions of section 48 of the Act. The Ld. A.R., in defence of his arguments relied on a series of decisions which are as under: 1. CIT vs. Trishul Investments Ltd. 305 ITR 434 (Madras HC) as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the department. SLP No.CC 8665of 2008 dated 11.07.2008. 2. CIT vs. Maithreyi Pai 152 ITR 247 (Kar. HC) 3. CIT vs. Mithilesh Kumari 92 ITR 9 (Delhi – HC) 4. Gayatri Maheshwari vs. ITO (2017) 88 taxmann.com 757 (Jodhpur) 5. ACIT vs. Mrs. Sheela Chopra ITA No.169/…

M/S. K. LALL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1566/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2008-09 K. Lall (Huf) Dcit H-8, Maharani Bagh, Vs Circle- 22(1) New Delhi. New Delhi Pan Adhk5198Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…f shares. While holding so the Tribunal had relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mithlesh Kumari reported in 92 ITR 09 (Del) and the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Trishul Investments Ltd. reported in 305 ITR 434 (Madras). He accordingly submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. 17. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on orders of the authorities below. 18. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. I am of the opinion that the matter needs…

ACIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FLAMBOYAWER FINANCE P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3388/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 55

…the present case, we hold that the Tribunal was right in adding the interest amount of Rs. 16,878 towards the actual cost of the land." 9. Similarly, the issue was dealt with by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trishul investments Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 434 (Madras), wherein the issue was the interest for acquisition of shares was held to be rightly capitalized with the cost of acquisition of shares and allowed to take as cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing capital gains. Hon’ble Madras High Court observed as under: - “In respect of question No. 2, the interest liability on the borrowe…

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

…wed as cost of acquisition. In support of this contention, he strongly relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mithilesh Kumari (92 ITR 9) & catena of other decisions which are as under:- • Trishul Investments Ltd vs. CIT: 305 ITR 434 (Mad.) • ACIT v: K S Gupta: 119-ITR372 (Andh.) • CIT v, MaithreyiPai: 152 ITR 247 (Kar.) • CIT v. K. Raja Gopala Rao: 252 ITR 459 (Madras) • CIT v. Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd: 188 Taxman 170 (Kar.) 123 | P a g e I.T.A .No.-4737/Del/2017 • Praveen Gupta v. ACIT: 20 Taxmann.com 308 (Del.) • S. Balan alia Shanmugam v. DCIT: 120 ITD 469 (Pune) •…

MALINI AGARWALLA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2161/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2161/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बनधम/ Mrs.Malini Agarwalla, Dcit-12(3), Aayakar Bahvan, 44-A, Mittal Tower, Vs. M K Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aadpa3396G अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Appellant By Shri Pankaj Jain प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Suman Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.1.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :2..2.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…s, if the factors so demand, so that the can utilize his capital and rotate it in the business. To purchase shares and then to wait for appreciation in their value in the long term is the classic example of an investor. In Trishul Investment Ltd., reported in 305 ITR 434 (Mad), the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that the rest to decide whether an activity was in the nature of investment or an adventure in the nature of trade has a very thin line of demarcation. It held that "even a single instance of transaction can be regarded as business and even multiple 6 I.T.A. No.2161/Mum/2013 transactions sometime are…

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

…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 @ Shanmugam Balkrishnan Chettiar v Deputy Commissioner of Income tax [2009] 120 ITD 469 (ITAT-Pune) " Commissioner of Income tax v Mithlesh Kumari [1973] 92 ITR 9 (HC-Delhi) " Assistant Commissioner of Income tax v Mrs Sheela Chiniwala [2011] 9 taxmann.com 279 (ITAT- Mumbai) " Commissioner of Income tax v Gulmohar Finance…

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2