Commissioner of Income Tax v. Riva Sharkar A Kothari

283 ITR 338High Court2006#2638 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Riva Sharkar A Kothari authority for?

The Gujarat High Court formulates tests to distinguish between assets held as investments (capital assets) and those for business dealing (stock-in-trade). This helps determine whether income from the sale of such assets is taxable as capital gains or business income, considering factors like acquisition intention and transaction frequency/volume.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rewashankar A. Kothari · 283 ITR 338 · capital asset vs stock-in-trade · capital gains vs business income · tests for asset classification · intention of acquisition · frequency of transactions · volume of trading · sale of securities

Issues it is cited on

proximate nexussection 10(35)dependent agent peservice pesection 135csr expenditureweighted deductionsection 35(2ab)section 10(34)transactional net margin methodenduring benefitsection 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Riva Sharkar A Kothari

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

…set for use and/ or earn income therefrom, then the character of such asset would be ‘capital asset’/ ‘investment’ and income from its sale would be ‘capital gains’ and not business income. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Rewashankar A. Kothari: 283 ITR 338, after analyzing various decisions of the Apex Court, formulated following tests for determining the nature of the asset: “(a) The first test is whether the initial acquisition of the subject- matter of transaction was with the intention of dealing in the item, or with a view to finding an investment. If the transaction, since the inception, appe…

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

…set for use and/ or earn income therefrom, then the character of such asset would be ‘capital asset’/ ‘investment’ and income from its sale would be ‘capital gains’ and not business income. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Rewashankar A. Kothari: 283 ITR 338, after analyzing various decisions of the Apex Court, formulated following tests for determining the nature of the asset: “(a) The first test is whether the initial acquisition of the subject- matter of transaction was with the intention of dealing in the item, or with a view to finding an investment. If the transaction, since the inception, appe…

SHRI AMRIT LAL BATRA,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3, SRINAGAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 482/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Aggarwal, Sr. DR

…the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vinay Mittal: [2012]208 Taxmann 106 (Delhi). In that decision, there is also a reference to a Gujarat High Court decision in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rewashanker A. Kothari: [2006] 283 ITR 338, wherein various tests were formulated in order to determine whether an assessee could be said to be carrying on the business of sale and purchase of various securities or whether the said assessee was holding them as an investment. One of the most important tests outlined in that decision was as to whether the transactions in the shares were of…

SH. AMRIT LAL BATRA, PROP.,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 211/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Aggarwal, Sr. DR

…the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vinay Mittal: [2012]208 Taxmann 106 (Delhi). In that decision, there is also a reference to a Gujarat High Court decision in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rewashanker A. Kothari: [2006] 283 ITR 338, wherein various tests were formulated in order to determine whether an assessee could be said to be carrying on the business of sale and purchase of various securities or whether the said assessee was holding them as an investment. One of the most important tests outlined in that decision was as to whether the transactions in the shares were of…

KANUBHAI VANMALIBHAI PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

…. N. & Co Limited (60 ITR 65-SC),  Kaur Singh (144 ITR 756 P & H),  Michael Kallivayalil (102 ITR 202 Ker),  Kasturi Estate (P) Limited (62 ITR 578 Madras),  Omkarmal Rambilas Ginning and Processing Factory (44 SOT 544 Hyd Trib.),  Rewashanker A Kothari (283 ITR 338- Gujarat),  Marudhar Hotels (P) Limited (92 DTR-1 Jodhpur Trib.) and  D.N. Krishanappa (21 DTR -11 Bangalore –Trib.) 9. At the time of making submissions by ld AR for the assessee, we raised quarry, if the order of Tribunal in first round of appeal was appealed in the High Court or not. The ld AR for the assessee fairly accepted that they filed…

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

…the character of such asset would be “capital asset”/ “investment” and income from its sale would be “capital gains” and not business income. He further placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Rewashankar A.Kothari 283 ITR 338. He then submitted that important fact to be taken into account are that the appellant is a pure investor and the appellant is not registered with any authority or body as being engaged in the business of dealing in shares/securities. This goes to demonstrate that the assessee is an investor and not trader. He further contended that investment in…

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

…the character of such asset would be “capital asset”/ “investment” and income from its sale would be “capital gains” and not business income. He further placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Rewashankar A.Kothari 283 ITR 338. He then submitted that important fact to be taken into account are that the appellant is a pure investor and the appellant is not registered with any authority or body as being engaged in the business of dealing in shares/securities. This goes to demonstrate that the assessee is an investor and not trader. He further contended that investment in…

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT YAMINI KHANDELWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 613/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.M. Thard, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Sr. D/R
Section 14A

…seen.” ITA No. 425 & 613/Kol/2015 Yamini Khandelwal ITA No. 1069 & 1105/Kol/2015 Suraj Khandelwal AY 2010-11 13 15.3 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court also had an occasion to consider this issue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Riva Sharkar A Kothari 283 ITR 338 (Guj.). Hon’ble Court made reference to the tests laid by it in its earlier decision rendered in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas vs. CIT reported in 1977 CTR 647 (Guj.). These tests read as under: “After analyzing various decisions of the apex court, this court has formulated certain tests to determine as to whether an assessee can be said…

YAMINI KHANDEL WAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 425/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.M. Thard, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Sr. D/R
Section 14A

…seen.” ITA No. 425 & 613/Kol/2015 Yamini Khandelwal ITA No. 1069 & 1105/Kol/2015 Suraj Khandelwal AY 2010-11 13 15.3 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court also had an occasion to consider this issue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Riva Sharkar A Kothari 283 ITR 338 (Guj.). Hon’ble Court made reference to the tests laid by it in its earlier decision rendered in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas vs. CIT reported in 1977 CTR 647 (Guj.). These tests read as under: “After analyzing various decisions of the apex court, this court has formulated certain tests to determine as to whether an assessee can be said…

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SURAJ KHANDEL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1105/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.M. Thard, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Sr. D/R
Section 14A

…seen.” ITA No. 425 & 613/Kol/2015 Yamini Khandelwal ITA No. 1069 & 1105/Kol/2015 Suraj Khandelwal AY 2010-11 13 15.3 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court also had an occasion to consider this issue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Riva Sharkar A Kothari 283 ITR 338 (Guj.). Hon’ble Court made reference to the tests laid by it in its earlier decision rendered in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas vs. CIT reported in 1977 CTR 647 (Guj.). These tests read as under: “After analyzing various decisions of the apex court, this court has formulated certain tests to determine as to whether an assessee can be said…

SURAJ KHANDELWAL,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1069/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.M. Thard, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Sr. D/R
Section 14A

…seen.” ITA No. 425 & 613/Kol/2015 Yamini Khandelwal ITA No. 1069 & 1105/Kol/2015 Suraj Khandelwal AY 2010-11 13 15.3 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court also had an occasion to consider this issue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Riva Sharkar A Kothari 283 ITR 338 (Guj.). Hon’ble Court made reference to the tests laid by it in its earlier decision rendered in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas vs. CIT reported in 1977 CTR 647 (Guj.). These tests read as under: “After analyzing various decisions of the apex court, this court has formulated certain tests to determine as to whether an assessee can be said…

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1738/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

…leave and license agreement, an encumbrance was created by the Appellant which could have been a hurdle for the Appellant to sell the title-free property. 9.1. At the juncture, the Appellant relies on the decision in the case of CIT v. Rcwashankcr A. Kothari [283 ITR 338 (Guj.)] [Page 361-368 of PB No. 2] wherein the Hon’ble High Court had laid down certain principles and tests to determine as to whether an assessee can be said to be carrying on business [Para 11, Page 367 of PB No. 2]. If the aforesaid tests laid down by the Hon’ble High Court at para-11 are considered and applied to the facts of the present cas…

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 403/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

…leave and license agreement, an encumbrance was created by the Appellant which could have been a hurdle for the Appellant to sell the title-free property. 9.1. At the juncture, the Appellant relies on the decision in the case of CIT v. Rcwashankcr A. Kothari [283 ITR 338 (Guj.)] [Page 361-368 of PB No. 2] wherein the Hon’ble High Court had laid down certain principles and tests to determine as to whether an assessee can be said to be carrying on business [Para 11, Page 367 of PB No. 2]. If the aforesaid tests laid down by the Hon’ble High Court at para-11 are considered and applied to the facts of the present cas…

MUJIB SALMANBHAI PATHAN,,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

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

ITA 98/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.98/Nag/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 ......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Mujib Salmanbhai Pathan, House No.242, Ward No.2, Old Area, Wardha Road, Butibori, Nagpur-441108. Pan : Aefpp0269M. बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-3, Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Veena Agrawal Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Stating That The Subject, Whether Proper Approval Was Taken Before Converting Limited Scrutiny Into Complete Scrutiny Being Administrative Measure Cannot Be Taken Up. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs 1,00,85,013/- Made By The Ao As Income Under The Head Business & Profession Rightly Declared As Income Under The Head Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Shri Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Smt. Agnes P. Thomas
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…ention to re-sell the land for profit. The assessee is undoubtedly entitled to hold two different portfolios in respect of the same kind of asset i.e. stock in trade and investment. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rewashanker A. Kothari, 283 ITR 338 held as under :- “The Commissioner had expressed prima facie opinion to the effect that the assessee was doing business in shares and the shares purchased by him were held as stock-in-trade. By holding that the Assessing Officer had failed to inquire about the real nature of the transaction, the Commissioner also opined prima facie that the trans…

M/S. KOHLI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 410/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 410/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Kohli Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 80, Scindia House, Ward-14(4), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack3430D Assessee By : Sh. G. S. Kohli, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2020

For Appellant: Sh. G. S. Kohli, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 2(14)Section 40a

…as the assessee has in the balance sheet itself shown the asset in question as stock of the current year filed along with the original return of income, but also in the previous years. As per the AO the Gujarat High Court in the case of Rewashanker A Kothari 283 ITR 338 (2006) which analyzed various decisions of the Apex Court, the following tests were held to be necessary to determine whether the transaction question was a business transaction or not: a) The first test is whether the initial acquisition of the subject- matter of transaction was with the intention of dealing in the item, or with a view to findi…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MUSSORRIE TRADING CO. PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4226/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 254(2)

…mode of book entry cannot change the nature of a receipt? 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in relying on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court Gujrat in the case of CIT vs Rewa Shanker A Kothari (206) 283 ITR 338 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Excel Industries Limited (358 ITR 495) in instant case where the assessee had not even discharge its initial onus by not providing separate account of its two portfolio i.e. investment and stock in trade? 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) o…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), , AHMEDABAD vs. SHAH INVESTORS HOME LTD,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2312/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri H. V. Gandhi, A.R
Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…es/securities/mutual funds. However, the ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit 188 Taxman 140 Gujarat High court in the case of CIT Vs. Rewashanker A Kothari 283 ITR 338 Sarnath Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 124 ITD 71 (LUK) and CBDT Circular No. 4 of 2007 dated 15th June, 2007 and stated that:- “6.6 I have also seen the submission furnished by the AR of the Appellant. I completely agree with the arguments of the AR of the Appellant that the AO is not justified in treating Capital Gain as Business income. IT…

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 548/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

…ent to come to a definite conclusion but the cumulative effect of several factors has to be seen.” 19. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had also an occasion to consider this issue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Riva Sharkar A Kothari reported in 283 ITR 338. Hon’ble court has made reference to the test laid by it in its earlier decision rendered in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas vs. CIT reported in 1977 CTR 647. These tests read as under: “After analyzing various decisions of the apex court, this court has formulated certain tests to determine as to whether an assessee can be said to be carry…

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

…ent to come to a definite conclusion but the cumulative effect of several factors has to be seen.” 19. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had also an occasion to consider this issue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Riva Sharkar A Kothari reported in 283 ITR 338. Hon’ble court has made reference to the test laid by it in its earlier decision rendered in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas vs. CIT reported in 1977 CTR 647. These tests read as under: “After analyzing various decisions of the apex court, this court has formulated certain tests to determine as to whether an assessee can be said to be carry…

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 116/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

…ent to come to a definite conclusion but the cumulative effect of several factors has to be seen.” 19. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had also an occasion to consider this issue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Riva Sharkar A Kothari reported in 283 ITR 338. Hon’ble court has made reference to the test laid by it in its earlier decision rendered in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas vs. CIT reported in 1977 CTR 647. These tests read as under: “After analyzing various decisions of the apex court, this court has formulated certain tests to determine as to whether an assessee can be said to be carry…

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Riva Sharkar A Kothari (283 ITR 338) — Cited in 44 Judgments | BharatTax