Deepaben Amitbhai Shah v. DCIT

397 ITR 687High Court2017#17833 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

period of holding short term capital gain transfer section 143(3)total income business interest

Judgments citing Deepaben Amitbhai Shah v. DCIT

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

…17:  ACIT vs. Wig Investments: 461 ITR 117 (Del HC) – AY 2006-07  PCIT vs. Hardik Bharat Patel: 260 Taxman 294 (Bom HC) [SLP dismissed] – AY 2008-09  PCIT vs. Ramniwas Ramjivan Kasat: 248 Taxman 484 (Guj HC) – AY 2006- 07  Deepaben Amitbhai Shah vs. DCIT: 397 ITR 687 (Guj HC) – AY 2004-05  DCIT vs. Hero Investment (P.) Ltd.: 204 ITD 29 (Del ITAT) – AY 2012-13  ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd: 169 taxmann.com 379 (Del ITAT) – AY 2004-05  Arunima Adcon Services (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT: 204 ITD 146 (Del ITAT) – AY 2015-16  ACIT vs. Sachin R. Tendulkar: 163 ITD 65 (Mum ITAT) – AY 2010-11 and 2011-12  Smt. Ya…

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

Shri Naman Jayeshbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 420/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…tted that following the principle of consistency, the gain on sale of shares as disclosed by the assessee should be treated as STCG and not business income. In this regard, he also placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) DeepabenAmitbhai Shah Vs. DCIT 397 ITR 687 (Guj) (ii) Dhruv H. Patel Vs. DCIT 80 taxmann.com 390 (Mum) 5. Shri Hishikes Hement Patki, Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the revenue submitted that the intention of the assessee was to apply in IPO, sale the shares allotted in IPO and maximize the profit which was an adventure in the nature of trade. He submitted that the principle of consistency c…

M/S. Chandan Infratech Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1597/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT/D.R

Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ivedi (HUF) (Guj.) reported in (2017) 87 taxmann.com 137 wherein it was held that the intention at the time of purchase is of paramount importance. The assessee also further relied upon the judgment of Deepaben Amitbhai Shah vs. DCIT (Guj.) reported in (2017) 397 ITR 687. The assessee also further relied upon in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (Bom) reported in (2010) 228 CTR 582. The assessee also further relied upon in the case of CIT vs. M.G. Share & Stock (P) Ltd. (2014) (Delhi High Court) reported in (2014) 52 taxmann.com 365 and submitted the sale of shares held as “Investment” and offered to tax as STGC…

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

…the conclusion of issue:- 1. Holding Where an assessee holds the assets for sufficient period it give the sense of “long term investment” and on its sale the profit/surplus is to be treated as “capital gain” as held by 393 ITR 132 (8-17) Gujarat High Court 397 ITR 687 (18-24) Gujarat High Court 334 ITR 192 (25-26) Punjab & Haryana High Court 2. At Cost That where the assessee is regularly showing the value of capital assets "at cost" it is to be treated as "long term investment" because "stock-in-trade" not only fluctuates every year due to frequent purchase and 9 Kohli Estates Pvt. Ltd. sales rather always…