Commissioner of Income Tax v. Riva Sharkar A Kothari

283 ITR 338High Court2006#2635 most cited

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

When determining whether an assessee is carrying on business, courts formulate tests, including whether the initial acquisition of the subject-matter of a transaction was with the intention of dealing in the item or with a view to investment. The cumulative effect of several factors must be considered, not just isolated ones.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Riva Sharkar A Kothari · business income · carrying on business · intention of dealing · investment · cumulative effect of factors · Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas · business tests

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

Tha Addl. CIT, Range-1, Baroda vs. M/S. Gujarat Flurochemicals Limited., Baroda

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

ITA 106/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 Fluorochemeicals Ltd, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

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

ITA 135/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

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…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda vs. Gujarat Flurochemicals Ltd., Baroda

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

ITA 2546/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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 Ltd., 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 2365/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shah Investors Home Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross

ITA 3316/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 36(2)Section 40

…Ahd/2015 & CO No. 8/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 7 DCIT vs. M/s. Shah Investors Home Ltd. 6.7 In view of the decisions of 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, following principles emerges to decide whether activity of dealing in shares can be treated as business activity or investment activity, which are compared with the facts of the case of the Appellant as under in order to adjudicate…

The ACIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Ketan V. Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3288/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Itano.3288/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.D.R
Section 10(38)Section 11ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…urchase of shares/securities is in the nature of adventure in trade. Therefore, the same should be offered as a business income. The AO in support of his view relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Reva Shankar Vs. CIT reported in 283 ITR 338. 2. The salary income represents only 13.71% of the total income, and similarly, the income from other sources is representing 1.67% of the total income whereas income under the head ‘’Capital Gain’’ is representing 84.42 percent of the total income. Thus it is evident that the activities of purchases and sales of shares/securities were carried o…

Shri Ashokkumar Khimraj, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1247/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1247/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Shri Ashokkumar Khimraj Ito, बनाम/ Prop. Ridhi Siddhi Ward – 3(1), Vs. Enterprises, 21, Shitalkunj Ahmedabad. Society, Rambaug Road, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpk 6404 N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Parin Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 01/11/2018

…rned CIT(A) disregarded the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of AO by observing as under: “4.1.3. Decision: The rival submissions have been considered. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rewashanker A. Kothari (2006) 283 ITR 338 (Guj.) has laid down the following tests for determining the question as to whether an assessee can be said to be carrying on business of sale and purchase of shares:- "[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…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ganesh Housing Corporation Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3083/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri C. Danday, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 253Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)

…ent to come to a definite conclusion but the cumulative effect of several factors has to be seen.” 26. 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…

Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Now, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3034/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri C. Danday, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 253Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)

…ent to come to a definite conclusion but the cumulative effect of several factors has to be seen.” 26. 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…

Ashish Ranwala, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Yadav, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 21/Mum/2015 AY: 2010-11 Ashish Ranwala Vs. ACIT-19(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.21/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ashish Ranwala 602, ACIT-19(1), Room No. 322, Symphony, Plot No. 269, बिधम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Junction of 8th and 12th Road, Mumbai-400012 Vs. Khar(West), Mumbai 400052 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. ADMPR0613D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) : अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Jitendra Jain, A.R प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Responde…

M/S. Tecee Investments, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Circle-10, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1423/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri N.K. Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1423/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Sonia Kumar, ACIT (DR)

…ient to come to a definite conclusion but the cumulative effect of several factors has to be seen.” 6. 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 8 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 c…

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)

…assessee as investment or stock-in-trade. 12. These instructions shall supplement the earlier Instruction No. 1827 dated August 31, 1989. [F. No. 149/287/2005-TPL] 5.5 We may point out that the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in CIT v. Rewashanker A. Kothari [2006] 283 ITR 338 / 155 Taxman 214 laid down the following guidelines in order to determine whether profits arising on sale is business income:- "The tests laid down by various decisions of the apex court indicate that, in each case, it is the total effect of all relevant factors and circumstances that determines the character of the transaction. Each case has to…

Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai vs. Dipak Kanayalal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3661/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhacit-24(1), फनाभ/ Shri Dipak Kanayalal Shah, 31-B, 1St Floor, Laxmi Estate, Mumbai. Vs. Azad Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 012. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aveps4654B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.12/M/2017 (Ay 2010-11) Shri Dipak Kanayalal Shah, फनाभ/ Acit-24(1), 31-B, 1St Floor, Laxmi Estate, Mumbai. Vs. Azad Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 012. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aveps4654B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora / Mr. Hemen Chandariya प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Ms. Beena Santosh, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora / Mr. HemenFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh, DR
Section 10(38)Section 111Section 111ASection 14ASection 2(29)(b)

…ove 275 days and below 365 days. Relying on the CBDT Circular No.4 (supra), Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Associated Industrial Development Co. Ltd [ITR 586] SC, Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Rewashanker A Kothari [283 ITR 338], assessee claimed the above gains as STCG and not as business income. The profits earned from the intra trade transactions were separately shown and offered to tax as „business income‟. In the remand proceedings, AO rejected the above claim of the assessee. In the process, the Assessing Officer disregarded the sanctity of the book entries, the B…

M/S Bagmane Developers Pvt Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/183/2014HC Karnataka03 Nov 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

…onsideration of so many factual aspects germane to record the conclusion. At this stage, we may usefully refer to decision of the Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat in case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. REWASHANKER A. KOTHARI reported in [2006] 283 ITR 338 (GUJ.) wherein the question arose for various tests on the basis of which a finding can be recorded as to whether the asset is a ‘stock-in-trade’ or an ‘inventory’ or a ‘capital 26 asset’. In the said decision at paragraphs 9 to 11 it was observed thus: “9. Upon examination of the aforesaid record, the Tribunal recorded tha…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/S. Bagmane Developers Pvt Ltd

ITA/145/2011HC Karnataka03 Nov 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

…onsideration of so many factual aspects germane to record the conclusion. At this stage, we may usefully refer to decision of the Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat in case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. REWASHANKER A. KOTHARI reported in [2006] 283 ITR 338 (GUJ.) wherein the question arose for various tests on the basis of which a finding can be recorded as to whether the asset is a ‘stock-in-trade’ or an ‘inventory’ or a ‘capital 26 asset’. In the said decision at paragraphs 9 to 11 it was observed thus: “9. Upon examination of the aforesaid record, the Tribunal recorded tha…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1431/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…0/- has been received from Mutual Fund which shows there was no intention of the assessee to earn capital appreciation or dividend but to deal in trading. Relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rewashankar A. Kothari (206) (283 ITR 338 (Guj) and also the Board's Circular No.412007 dated 15.6.2007 the ld. AO treated the profits received from the transactions as income from business and taxed at normal rates. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4.16 In the appeal proceedings, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee h…

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1180/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…0/- has been received from Mutual Fund which shows there was no intention of the assessee to earn capital appreciation or dividend but to deal in trading. Relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rewashankar A. Kothari (206) (283 ITR 338 (Guj) and also the Board's Circular No.412007 dated 15.6.2007 the ld. AO treated the profits received from the transactions as income from business and taxed at normal rates. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4.16 In the appeal proceedings, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee h…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. K.S. Gupta & Sons, Meerut

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6019/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Ms Ritu Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate
Section 143(2)

…of CIT(A) and also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Jubilant Securities Pvt. Ltd. 333 ITR 445 (Delhi) and judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Rewa Shankar A. Kothari 283 ITR 338 (Guj). 14. On careful consideration of the above rival submissions and dicta laid down by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Jubilant Securities P. Ltd. (supra), firstly we observe that the first appellate authority granted relief to the assessee with following conclusion:- “6.4. Decision and reasons therefor: I have carefully…

CIT vs. Amit Jain

ITA - 517 / 2012HC Delhi03 Mar 2015
Section 143

…transactions, a proper application of the legal tests, would result in the treatment of sum of `2.61 crores as business income. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rewashanker A. Kothari, (2006) 283 ITR 338 which had formulated the following tests to decide whether the nature and character of sums reported as income are truly business income or on account of capital gains: “(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 inve…

CIT vs. Vinay Mittal

ITA/1172/2011HC Delhi27 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…d by the assessee as investment or stock-in-trade. 12. These instructions shall supplement the earlier Instruction No. 1827 dated August 31, 1989-Circular No.4/2007, dated 15-6-2007.” 8. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rewashanker A. Kothari (2006) 283 ITR 338, the Gujarat High Court, after considering its earlier decision in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas Vs. CIT (1977) 6 CTR 647 (Guj.), has formulated the following tests to determine whether the assessee can be said to be carrying on business of sale and purchase of various securities or holding them as an investment. The tests are as un…