Gopal Purohit v. JCIT

29 SOT 117Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#3629 most cited

What is Gopal Purohit v. JCIT authority for?

The revenue is debarred from taking inconsistent stands on similar facts across different assessment years, adhering to the rule of consistency. Short-term capital gains are assessable under the head 'Capital Gains' only.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gopal Purohit v. JCIT · rule of consistency · income tax · assessment years · flickering stands · short term capital gains · capital gains · investment · business income · delivery based transactions

Judgments citing Gopal Purohit v. JCIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Singh, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3807/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-3807/Del/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) ACIT, Vs Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Singh, Circle-31(1), Room No.-185A, 10-G, DCM Building, 16, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN-ADOPS9838F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. S.Krishnan, Adv. Revenue by Sh.S.K.Jain, Sr.DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A). The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 18.05.2011 of CIT(A)-XXVI,…

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…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Rajesh D Nandu (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1721/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1721/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Sanghavi
Section 143(2)Section 14A

…the principles as well as guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid mentioned case the asessee is an ‘investor’ only. 5.1 ld. AR further relied upon the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of ‘Gopal Purohit vs. JCIT’ (29 SOT 117) (Mum) where the ITAT has also considered all the decision and CBDT Circular in this regard and since the activities of the assessee are similar to the facts of the case relied upon by the ld. AR. Hence, ld. AR supported the orders passed by the CIT(A) and requested to dismiss the present appeal filed by the revenue at the end ld. AR further reli…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. H.K. Financiers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1526/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Patodi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N o n e
Section 143(3)

…al Development Co. Ltd. (SC) 82 ITR 586 Janak S. Rangwalla V. ACIT (2007) 11 SOT 627 (Mum. Trib.) CIT V. N.S.S. Investments P. Ltd. (2005) 277 ITR 149 (Mad) Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. V. ITO (220) 115 TTJ 639 (Mum. Trib.) Gopal Purohit V. JCIT, 25(3), Mumbai (2009) 29 SOT 117 (Mum.Trib.) Sarnath Infrastructure P. Ltd. V. ACIT (2009) 313 ITR (AT) 13 (Lucknow) DCIT V. Reena Sarogi ITA No. 1202/Cal/98 & 332/Cal/2001) DCIT V. Kavita Parasramka (ITA No. 1033/KoI/2008, dt. 20.3.09) The ratio laid down by the judicial forums in the above cases is that one has to see the basic 'intention' of the assessee in the books to disti…

DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Manoj N. Tekriwal, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5594/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 2008-09 Dy. Cit-24(2), Shri Manoj N. Tekriwal, C-13, 6Th Flr. B-504, Harishchandra Apts. बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Raheja Township, Malad(E), Vs. Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400097 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Abtpt8105D

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,बी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, 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 2008-09 Dy. CIT-24(2), Shri Manoj N. Tekriwal, C-13, 6th flr. B-504, Harishchandra Apts. बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Raheja Township, Malad(E), Vs. BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400097 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.ABTPT8105D राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Randhir Gupta "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri G.P.…