Gopal Purohit v. JCIT

29 SOT 117Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#5107 most cited
23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing Gopal Purohit v. JCIT

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ITA no. 3717/Mum/2015 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA no

ITA 3717/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 88E

…yet in view of rule of consistency, in our opinion, the revenue is debarred from taking flickering stands on similar facts in different assessment years. Our aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Gopal Purohit Vs. JCIT [29 SOT 117] as confirmed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit [336 ITR 287]. Further the SLP of the department against the same has been dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 15/11/2010.” 3. The Tribunal quoted from this decision and theafter the Tribunal concluded as under :- “Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the cas…

STAR INTERNAITONAL MOVIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership V. Scindia House, C/O Star India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaefc6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri. Pavan K Beerla (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 92C

…levant to Income-tax matters and Assessing Officer cannot be ignore the same. There ought to be uniformity in treatment and consistency when the facts and circumstances are identical as held by the Mumbai Tribunal in Gopal Purohit v. Jt. CIT (2009] 122 TTJ 87/29 SOT 117." • Kuehne Nagel Private Limited vs. ACTT (ITA No. 5648/Del/2010) "4.34. The Department has accepted assesses working of international transactions at an arms length for assessment years A Y 2003-04, A Y 2004-05 and A Y 2005-06 and also the next two assessment years AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09. Therefore, a different treatment can not be given to as…

CHANNEL MUSIC NETWORKS LTD PARTNERSHIP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1519/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership V. Scindia House, C/O Star India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaefc6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri. Pavan K Beerla (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 92C

…levant to Income-tax matters and Assessing Officer cannot be ignore the same. There ought to be uniformity in treatment and consistency when the facts and circumstances are identical as held by the Mumbai Tribunal in Gopal Purohit v. Jt. CIT (2009] 122 TTJ 87/29 SOT 117." • Kuehne Nagel Private Limited vs. ACTT (ITA No. 5648/Del/2010) "4.34. The Department has accepted assesses working of international transactions at an arms length for assessment years A Y 2003-04, A Y 2004-05 and A Y 2005-06 and also the next two assessment years AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09. Therefore, a different treatment can not be given to as…

ACIT 33(3), MUMBAI vs. REKHA KHANDELWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 3257/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ramlal Negiआयकर अपील सुं./I.T.A. No.3257/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 बिाम/ Acit-33(3), Smt. Rekha Khandelwal, R.No. 607, 6 Th Floor, C-12, A-2703/04, Oberai Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Woods, Goregoan (E) V. Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400057 400051 स्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan:Abtpk4148D

For Appellant: Shri. Neelkanth Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri. Nishant Samaiya (DR)
Section 143(3)

…The matter travelled before CIT(A). The issue was decided in favour of the appellant by my predecessor who has allowed the claim of the short term capital gain of the assessee by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gopal Purohit reported in 29 SOT 117, which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, and held that the delivery based transactions are to be treated as investment and income therefrom is to be taxed as short term or long term capital gain and not business income as held by the AO. This matter further travelled to the ITAT. The Hon'ble Mumbai TV BENCH ITAT in its o…

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3758/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Dr. A.L. Sainil&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai L&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala a/wFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh a/w

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER L&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AAACL8668G v/s Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai L&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AAACL8668G v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri M.M. Golvala a/w Shri Akram Khan Revenue by : Shri H.N. Singh a/w…

ACIT -3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOLDEN LIFE FINACIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3053/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singha C I T - 3(1)(2) M/S. Golden Life Financial Room No. 607, 6Th Floor Services Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Lifeline Inusrance Vs. Distribution Co. Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai 400020 125-B, Mittal Court, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacl8998D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajat MittalFor Respondent: Ms. Krupa Gandhi
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…alance sheet. Further, it is seen that the investment has received a dividend of Rs. 4,69,605/- during the year. In fact, this is the amount that was subject of ground no. 1 above. 5.2.6 I find the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in Gopal Purohit vs JCIT, 29 SOT 117 (Mum) is applicable in the instant case. In that case, it was held that delivery based transactions should be treated as of nature of investment transactions. Similar view has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the same case in ITA 1121 of 2009 cited in 188 Taxman 140 (Bom)(2010). 5.2.7 The AO has not offered any cogent reason either in t…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. LARSEN & TOUBRO FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4459/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…yet in view of rule of consistency, in our opinion, the revenue is debarred from taking flickering stands on similar facts in different assessment years. Our aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Gopal Purohit Vs. JCIT [29 SOT 117] as confirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit [336 ITR 287]. Further the SLP of the department against the same has been dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 15/11/2010. The relevant portion of Tribunal’s order is extracted below for ease of reference:- ITA Nos.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Asse…

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3982/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…yet in view of rule of consistency, in our opinion, the revenue is debarred from taking flickering stands on similar facts in different assessment years. Our aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Gopal Purohit Vs. JCIT [29 SOT 117] as confirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit [336 ITR 287]. Further the SLP of the department against the same has been dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 15/11/2010. The relevant portion of Tribunal’s order is extracted below for ease of reference:- ITA Nos.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Asse…

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3981/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…yet in view of rule of consistency, in our opinion, the revenue is debarred from taking flickering stands on similar facts in different assessment years. Our aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Gopal Purohit Vs. JCIT [29 SOT 117] as confirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit [336 ITR 287]. Further the SLP of the department against the same has been dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 15/11/2010. The relevant portion of Tribunal’s order is extracted below for ease of reference:- ITA Nos.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Asse…

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3980/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…yet in view of rule of consistency, in our opinion, the revenue is debarred from taking flickering stands on similar facts in different assessment years. Our aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Gopal Purohit Vs. JCIT [29 SOT 117] as confirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit [336 ITR 287]. Further the SLP of the department against the same has been dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 15/11/2010. The relevant portion of Tribunal’s order is extracted below for ease of reference:- ITA Nos.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Asse…

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)

…ing that their claim as an investor has been accepted in the preceding year. Inter alia, the ld. AR relied upon decision dated 6-1-2010 in CIT v. Gopal Purohit [2010] 188 Taxman 140 (Bom.), upholding decision of the Tribunal in Gopal Purohit v. Jt. CIT [2009] 29 SOT 117 (Mum). ITA No. 5845/Del./2014 10 5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case as also the aforesaid decisions relied upon by both the sides. The issue before us is as to whether the shares quoted in stock exchange and traded in by the assessee , which were classified as "investment" in their books of account, were the…

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. MEENAL D SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4713/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ashwanitanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit 25(2) Smt. Meenal D. Shah बनाम/ Bldg. No. C-11, 1St B-201, Victory Park, Floor, R.No. 108, Chandarvarkar Lane, Vs. Pratyakashkarbhavan, Borivali(W), Mumbai-400092. Bandra-Kurla Pan: Anqps7458F Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai 400051 Appellant (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaatn0093Q Appellant By Shri Mc Omi Ningshen, Dr Respondent By Shri Rahul K. Hakani, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2017 आदेश की तारीख /Date Of Order: 15/02/2017

Section 143

…y in 10 scrips which indicated that the appellant was only an investor which the A.O. completely overlooked. Based on the principle of consistency, the appellant is to be treated as investor as held by the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Gopal Purohit (29 SOT 117) and it was further held in the above case that all the delivery based transactions should be treated as short term capital gain or long term capital gain depending upon the period of holding. The above decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (228 CTR 582). Further, there is no dispute that the appellant took d…

S.K. KANKAL HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4606/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…he AO. There was no basis for the AO in this year to take a divergent view. The shares have always been shown as part of investment and accepted as such. Ld. Counsel relied upon the following judgements in support of his claim: 1) Gopal Purohit v. JCIT [2009] 29 SOT 117 (MUM) 2) CIT v.Gopal Purohit [2011] 336 ITR 287 (Bom) 3) ACIT v. Chetan K. Mehta - (ITA No.6529/Murn/2011) 4) ACIT v. Shri Ronnie Hosi Mehta (ITA No. 640/M/2012) 5) M/s. Mindset Technologies Pvt.Ltd. (ITA No.7071/M/2013) 6) Shri Dhairesh K. Sangvi v. DCIT (ITA No. 2933/M/2013) 7) DCIT v. M/s. E-Cap Partners (ITA No.4785/M/2009) 8) Shri Rajesh S. S…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 173/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 271A

…120 TTJ 216 (ITAT- Lucknow) " Janak S Rangwalla v Assistant Commissioner of Income tax [2007] 11 SOT 627 (ITAT- Mumbai) " Vinod K Nevatia v Commissioner of Income tax (ITA No.6556/Mum/2009)(lTAT- Mumbai) " Gopal Purohit v Joint Commissioner of Income tax 2009 29 SOT 117 (ITAT, Mumbai) " Commissioner of Income tea v NSS Investment (P) Limited 158 Taxman 13 (HC - Madras) 17 Mahesh Kumar " Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v Commissioner of Income tax [1965] 57 ITR 21(SC) " Commissioner of Income tax v Vikram Cotton Mills Limited [1988] 169 ITR 597(SC) " Vinod M Shah v Additional Commissioner of Income tax [2010] 38 SOT 503 (I…

DCIT 20(2), MUMBAI vs. PRITI H POLADIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2010/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-20(2), Priti H. Poladia, Room No.217, 02Nd Floor, Flat No.7, 02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Mohanlal Mansion, Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Mumbai-400012 Matunga (E), Mumbai-400019 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aagps4681P

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘सी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘C’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT-20(2), Priti H. Poladia, Room No.217, 02nd Floor, Flat No.7, 02nd Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Mohanlal Mansion, Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Mumbai-400012 Matunga (E), Mumbai-400019 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) PAN. No.AAGPS4681P Shri Rajat Mittal-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by ""यथ" क" ओर से / Resp…

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…el.)  M/s. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.)  Vesta Investment& Trading Co. (P) Ltd: 70 ITD 200 (Chd.)  Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd V. JCIT: 100 ITD 422 (Jodh.)  CIT v. A.K.J. Security Printers: 264 ITR 276 (Del)  Gopal Purohit v. JCIT (29 SOT 117): Mum Trib  Bio Med (P.) Ltd v ACIT: 69 SOT 250 (Delhi - Trib.) Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 238 of 484 In nutshell his submission was the commission paid to Managing Director is allowable in terms of se…

DILIP VARIYA HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, more specifically when the assessee is carrying the business of

ITA 7597/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Dilip Variya Huf, Income Tax Officer-25(3)(2) 602, Shri Aashirwad Chs, Mumbai बनाम/ Shankar Lane, Opp. Shankar Vs. Mandir, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400101 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aachd1838F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘एक-सद"य’ "यायपीठ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Dilip Variya HUF, Income Tax Officer-25(3)(2) 602, Shri Aashirwad CHS, Mumbai बनाम/ Shankar Lane, Opp. Shankar Vs. Mandir, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400101 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.AACHD1838F Shri N.M. Porwal "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Sumit Kumar-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing 07/09/2016 08/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date of Order: आदेश…

DARSHANA B. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 13(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 5462/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Darshana B. Doshi Acit, Circle-13(3), 31, Broach Street, Devraj 430, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th बनाम/ Ratanshi Marg, Iron Market, Floor, M.K. Marg, Vs. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai 400 020. Mumbai 400009. Pan. No. Aabpd7806Q (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 10(34)

…el also explained that there was a loss on the transaction for A.Y 2009-10 which was allowed to be carried forward by the department. On the rule of consistency reliance was placed upon the decisions in Gopal Purohit vs. 3 Smt. Darshana B. Doshi JCIT (2009) 29 SOT 117 (Mum) (which was affirmed by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in 336 ITR 287 (Bom) and SLP was dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2011) 334 ITR (St.) 308 (SC)), Shantilal Jain vs. ACIT (2011) 132 ITD 466 (Mum), Dharmesh R. Shah vs. JCIT (2013) 60 SOT 182 (Mum), Kunverji Nanji Kenia vs. Addl. CIT (2010) 131 TTJ 87 (Mum) and another decision from…

LATE SHRI LALCHAND S. ROHRA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 14(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7999/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Joginder Singhlate Shri Lalchand S. Rohra, By Legal Heir : Mrs. Beena Sachev, 101-A, Embassy Apartments, 46, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 026 Pan:Aaspr 0251L ... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…hort term capital gain as well as long term capital gain and department while making the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 11.8.2006, copy placed on record, accepted the capital gain shown by the assessee. In the case of Gopal Purohit vs JCIT, 29 SOT 117(Mum), ITAT has held that most crucial source of gathering intention of assessee as regards nature of transaction is the accounts maintained by the assessee. It is further held that delivery based transactions should be treated as investment transactions. The said finding of 7 the Tribunal has been upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the above c…

ACIT 21(1), MUMBAI vs. NAILESH P. DALAL, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6169/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-21(1), Shri Nailesh Dalal, 6Th Floor, C-10, 5-6, Viram, 62, बनाम/ Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Hatkesh Society, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, N. S. Road No.8, Bandra (East) Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400049 (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aacpd9844N Cross Objection No.49/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6169/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Nailesh Dalal, Acit-21(1), 5-6, Viram, 62, 6Th Floor, C-10, बनाम/ Hatkesh Society, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. N. S. Road No.8, Bandra Kurla Complex, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue ) Pan. No.Aacpd9844N

…he decision from Hon’ble Jurisdictional High ITA No.6169/Mum/2014 & 19 CO No.46/Mum/2014 Nailesh P Dalal Court in CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (2010) 188 Taxman 140 (Bom.), CIT vs. Merlin Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (2015) ITA No. 101 of 2011 (Cal.), Gopal Purohit vs. JCIT 29 SOT 117 (Mumbai ITAT); Janak S Rangwala vs. ACIT (2007) 11 SOT 627 (Mum) and various other decisions already deliberated upon in the aforesaid order, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 6. So far as cross-objection of the assessee with respect to upholding Rs.12,39,705/- as busi…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2