CIT vs. D&M Components Ltd. 364 ITR 179; CIT v. H. Holck Larsen

340 ITR 75High Court2012#17698 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT vs. D&M Components Ltd. 364 ITR 179; CIT v. H. Holck Larsen

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 18 vs. M/S Wig Investment

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/169/2020HC Delhi15 Jan 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…ITA 169/2020 Page 1 of 18 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 29.11.2023 Judgment Pronounced on:15.01.2024 + ITA 169/2020 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 18 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Zoheb Hossain, Sr Standing Counsel, with Mr Sanjeev Menon, Standing Counsel. versus M/S WIG INVESTMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr S. Ganesh, Senior Adv. with Ms Shreya Jain and Mr Gaurav Tanwar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R…

M/S. Gayan Traders Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA/48/2009HC Calcutta30 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…alakshmi Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax7. 7. We have elaborately heard learned counsel for the parties. 4 (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) 5 (1986) 3 SCC 364 6 (1969) 2 SCC 25 7 (2012) 340 ITR 75 AP ITA NO. 48 OF 2009 REPORTABLE Page 7 of 19 8. The CBDT by Circular No. 4 of 2007 dated 15.06.2007 laid down the tests for distinguishing shares held as stock-in-trade and shares held…

Sanjay Gupta, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1787/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2012-13 Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-3(1), Pan: Acgpg 3696 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2021 Order

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 57

…d stating that all the documentary evidence were furnished by the assessee and therefore the transactions made by the assessee cannot be treated as bogus. He also relied on the decision of hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case PVS Raju Vs. ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 75 to drive his point. 10. The learned DR on the other hand relied on the orders of Revenue authorities. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. As observed by the learned Revenue authorities, it is apparent that the companies whose shares were traded were mere paper companies, the directors of the compa…

M/S Unicorn Agro Tech Limited, Secunderabad vs. The Asst. Commisisoner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITTA/48/2009HC Telangana16 Mar 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 143(3)Section 260A

Dpj Viniyog Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1003/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1003/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dpj Viniyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-9, Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata – 700 C/O V.N. Purohit & Co., Diamond 069. Chambers, Unit-Iii, 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, 4, Chowringhee, Lane, Kolkata-700016 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcd 5982 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriV. N. Purohit, ARFor Respondent: ShriA. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

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

…, whether the assessee company was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of shares as a trader or as an investor, following criteria should be examined as per the judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of PVS Raju &Anr. Vs. Addl. CIT 340 ITR 75 (AP): (i) The frequency of buying & selling of shares; (ii) The period of holding; (iii) The quantum of turnover; (iv) The intention of the assessee to make quick profits; (v) Purchasing & selling of same script repeatedly; (vi) Mere classification of share transaction as investment in the books of accounts of one is not conclusive; (vii) The inte…