Gopal Purohit v. CIT

OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

…4 (Gau)\nIn the context of the dispute whether the share transactions\nresulted in trading profit or capital gains, the rule of\nconsistency has been applied in the following two decisions of\nthe Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal:\n(Gopal Purohit vs.Jt. CIT/2009/20 DTR 99(Mumbai Trib.)\nJanak S. Rangwala vs. ACIT/2007] 11 SOT 627 (Mumbai)\nFollowing the rule of consistency, the Tribunal in above cases,\naccepted the assessee's contention that assessee was investor\nin shares and not trader because in the earlier years, the\nRevenue had accepted that the assessee was investor. In\nJanak Rangawala's case (Supra), the…

M/S. OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

…R 4 (Gau)\n\nIn the context of the dispute whether the share transactions resulted in trading profit or capital gains, the rule of consistency has been applied in the following two decisions of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal:\n(Gopal Purohit vs.Jt. CIT/2009/20 DTR 99(Mumbai Trib.)\nJanak S. Rangwala vs. ACIT/2007] 11 SOT 627 (Mumbai)\n\nFollowing the rule of consistency, the Tribunal in above cases, accepted the assessee's contention that assessee was investor in shares and not trader because in the earlier years, the Revenue had accepted that the assessee was investor. In Janak Rangawala's case (Supra), the Tr…

TIKUCHAND DURGAJI JOGANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 17 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Tikuchand Durgaji Jogani, The Acit-17(3), 301, Gundecha Chambers, Room No. 137, N.M. Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai - 400023 Vs. Road, Pan: Aaapj8019Q Mumbai - 400020

…of CIT Vs. Dineshbhai C. Patel (supra). It is not denied that the facts involved in this case in the case of Dineshbhai C. Patel (supra) are similar to the facts in the case of the assessee. Similarly, the facts involved in the case of Gopal Purohit Vs. JC1T 20 DTR 99 (Mumbai) were also the same as in the case of the assessee. In all those cases, the Tribunal took the view that period of holding cannot be the basis to determine whether the share transaction entered into by the assessee is a business income or capital gain. In this case also, we noted that the assessing officer has built up his case mainly on the…

ACIT 13(2), MUMBAI vs. ANAND GUPTA HUF, MUMBAI

…which shows that the shares were invested for capital gains and also dividend income was earned on quite a few shares.It referred to the CBDT Circular No. 4 of 2007 dated 16-06-2007 and relied upon the cases of V. Nagesh (ITA No. 5410/Mum/2008)Gopal Purohit (20 DTR 99). The FAA after considering the assessment order and the submissions of the assessee held that the holding period in the assessee's case in most of the shares was for the period of 180 days to 365 days than the period from one to 180 days,that the day-wise holding of share was more than 50% in respect of share from 180 to 365 days,that the transact…