Commissioner of Income Tax v. P. Manomani

M/S. Eastman Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and that of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

…relied on the following decisions : (i). CIT(Central) v. Associated Indl. Development Co. (P) Ltd., 82 ITR 588 (SC). (ii). CIT vs. H. Holck Larsen, 160 ITR 67 (SC) (iii). Authority for Advance Ruling in Fidelity Group, 288 ITR 641. (iv). CIT vs. P. Manonmani, 245 ITR 48 (Mad). (v). CIT vs. JH Gotla MANU/SC/0126/1985 The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the detailed submissions, facts of the case and various decisions, directed the Assessing Officer to treat the surplus received on sale and purchase of shares as short term capital gain and long terms capital gains…

CIT vs. Devasan Investment Pvt Ltd

…sactions were clearly part of its trading activities, not only because there were no separate accounts, but also because frequent sale and purchase of shares of few companies had been resorted to. The decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. P. Manomani, 245 ITR 48 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Malabar Investment Co., 320 ITR 486 (Kar) were relied on. Relying on the reasoning of the AO, it was argued that the pattern of share acquisition and share clearly showed that the assessee’s intention was to trade or conduct business and not to hold the scrips for investment. Had the intention been gen…

CIT vs. Devasan Investment Pvt Ltd

…sactions were clearly part of its trading activities, not only because there were no separate accounts, but also because frequent sale and purchase of shares of few companies had been resorted to. The decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. P. Manomani, 245 ITR 48 (Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Malabar Investment Co., 320 ITR 486 (Kar) were relied on. Relying on the reasoning of the AO, it was argued that the pattern of share acquisition and share clearly showed that the assessee’s intention was to trade or conduct business and not to hold the scrips for investment. Had the intention been gen…

Commissioner of Income Tax-V N vs. Damanjit Singh

…s not present in the Section and therefore applying the same rule of causus omissus such word cannot be read into the Section. 25.2. We are inclined to adopt the approach explained by the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. P.Manonmani 245 ITR 48 at 55 in the following words: “While ascertaining the true scope of a provision in a statute, attention must necessarily be paid not only to the text, viz., the words employed in the relevant provision, but also the context. The Supreme Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) 61 C…