Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. 100 ITR 706 (SC); and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

…capital asset'. Reference, in this regard, was drawn from the following decisions and CBDT circulars: Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh: 77 ITR 253 (SC) Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd: 100 ITR 706 (SC) Karam Chand Thapar& Bros. (P) Limited V. CIT: 82 ITR 899 (SC) PCIT v. Ramniwas Ramjivan Kasat: 248 taxman 484 (Guj.) PCIT v. Hardik Bharat Patel: ITA No. 390 of 2016 (Bom.) CIT vs Century Plyboard (1) Ltd.: ITA No. 83/2010 (Cal.) Circular No. 4 of 2007, dated 15.6.2007- CBDT. Circular No.6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 34. Ld. Sr. Counsel has also pointed out that in the present case, original shareholding held…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

…transactions. Reliance was placed upon the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh 77 ITR 253 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. 100 ITR 706 (SC); and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. vs CIT 82 ITR 899 (SC). 81. To buttress the contention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified in the aforesaid judgement that the nature of asset, whether “stock in trade” or “capital asset” depends upon the intention with which the same was acquired i.e. with a view to deal/trade in same or to enjoy benefit including capital appreciation as a result of holding…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

…transactions. Reliance was placed upon the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh 77 ITR 253 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. 100 ITR 706 (SC); and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. vs CIT 82 ITR 899 (SC). 81. To buttress the contention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified in the aforesaid judgement that the nature of asset, whether “stock in trade” or “capital asset” depends upon the intention with which the same was acquired i.e. with a view to deal/trade in same or to enjoy benefit including capital appreciation as a result of holding…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. DREAMLAND BUILD TECH P. LTD.

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

…d CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC), Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Fraser (1942) 24 TC 498, Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Central) (I97I) 82 ITR 899 (SC). JTA Nos. 829/2015, 908/2015 & 886/2015 Page 5 of 7 o 10.The ITAT also referred to the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the ITAT in Sarnath Infrastructure P.Ltd. v. ACIT, (2009) 313 ITR (AT) 13 (Lucknow) which carved out the principle to determine whether a transaction is in the nature of trade or are for merely investment purposes. After…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL -3 vs. DREAMLAND BUILD TECH P. LTD.

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

…d CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC), Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Fraser (1942) 24 TC 498, Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Central) (I97I) 82 ITR 899 (SC). JTA Nos. 829/2015, 908/2015 & 886/2015 Page 5 of 7 o 10.The ITAT also referred to the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the ITAT in Sarnath Infrastructure P.Ltd. v. ACIT, (2009) 313 ITR (AT) 13 (Lucknow) which carved out the principle to determine whether a transaction is in the nature of trade or are for merely investment purposes. After…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3 vs. DREAMLAND BUILD TECH P. LTD

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

…d CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC), Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Fraser (1942) 24 TC 498, Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Central) (I97I) 82 ITR 899 (SC). JTA Nos. 829/2015, 908/2015 & 886/2015 Page 5 of 7 o 10.The ITAT also referred to the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the ITAT in Sarnath Infrastructure P.Ltd. v. ACIT, (2009) 313 ITR (AT) 13 (Lucknow) which carved out the principle to determine whether a transaction is in the nature of trade or are for merely investment purposes. After…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHAJAN INDUSTRIES P. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

…nt, though motivated possibility of enhancing value does not render investment a transaction in the nature of trade or adventure. The ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karamchand Thapar Vs. CIT reported at 82 ITR 899 [SC] and submitted that the manner of disclosure in the balance sheet though not conclusive but it is very relevant circumstances for determining that whether the said property was kept as stock in trade or as in investment/fixed asset in the books of account of the assessee. 6.7 The ld. AR further drew our attention towards pages 355 to 364 of t…

CIT vs. J. H. FINVEST PVT. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…dant has been assessed for tax) are not a loan from the plaintiff but “in the nature of gift” from the plaintiff and not repayable to the plaintiff. 29. Supreme Court, in Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta (1971) 82 ITR 899 held the circumstance that the assessee was showing the shares as investment shares in its books of accounts as well as in the balance sheet, though not conclusive, but is relevant circumstance on which reliance could be placed upon and necessary inference drawn. It was further held that the explanation, that the Company had to do so because…

CIT vs. J. H. FINVEST PVT. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…dant has been assessed for tax) are not a loan from the plaintiff but “in the nature of gift” from the plaintiff and not repayable to the plaintiff. 29. Supreme Court, in Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta (1971) 82 ITR 899 held the circumstance that the assessee was showing the shares as investment shares in its books of accounts as well as in the balance sheet, though not conclusive, but is relevant circumstance on which reliance could be placed upon and necessary inference drawn. It was further held that the explanation, that the Company had to do so because…