Gopal Purohit v. Jt. CIT

122 TTJ 87Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#12119 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing Gopal Purohit v. Jt. CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 32(3), MUMBAI vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

ITA 5270/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit 32(3) M/S Sagar Construction Room No. 732, 7Th Floor, Vs. C-402, Gokul Divine, Irla, S.V. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Road, Vile Parle (W), Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai - 400 056 Pan No. Aagfs8539N (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…hat investment can be liable to tax only under the head capital gains, reliance was placed in the case of CIT Vs. S. Ramaamirtham, (2008) 306 ITR 239 (Mad). Reliance was also placed on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gopal Purohit, 122 TTJ 87 (Mum), wherein it was held that profit arising from such transaction should not be treated as income from business and profession. It was further submitted by ld.AR that the Tribunal has dealt with each and every aspect of transaction in the immediately preceding assessment year 2007-08 and held as under :- “7. We have carefully considered the riv…

I-VEN MEDICARE INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for all years under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT
Section 234C

…ITA Nos.408,2677 & 976(B)/2018 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.BEENA PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER ITA Nos.408, 2677(Bang)/2017 & 976(Bang)/2018 (Assessment years : 2009-10,2011-12,2012-13 & 2013-14) M/s i-VEN Medicare India Pvt.Ltd., 10th Floor, Prestige Obelisk, No.3, Kasturba Road, Bengaluru-560 001 Appellant Pan No.AABCI7266A Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(3), Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Shri H.N. Khincha, CA Revenue by : Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT Date of hearing : 08-07-2019 Date of pronou…

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

…tency is relevant 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…

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

…tency is relevant 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…

SANJAY KUMAR PODDAR,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 15(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee, in part

ITA 3150/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3150/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Jain & Associates, Circle 15(1),Matru Mandir, Vs. 12 Engineer Building, 265, Princess Mumbai-400 006. Street, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan:Aabpp 2018 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3961/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Vs. Jain & Associates, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri A.K. Nayak- Dr Assessee By: Shri S.L. Jain

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Nayak- DR
Section 10Section 111ASection 143Section 2Section 254(1)

…having regard to the principle of consistency profit on realization of investment is required to be assessed as capital gains. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gopal Purohit, reported in 122 TTJ 87, which was confirmed by the Hon‟ble High Court, reported in 228 CTR 582 and the SLP filed by the department before the hon‟ble Supreme Court was also dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2010. There is no dispute to the fact that in its books of accounts also the assessee has treated the same as investment by proper disclosure in its audited balance s…

D.C.I.T CC - VIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PURBANCHAL LEASING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1429/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan,J.M. & Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT,DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ction as trading in shares. In this regard the Assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT (Mumbai) in the case of Janak S. Rangawala 11 SOT 627. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT (Mumbai) in the case of Gopal Purohit 122 TTJ 87 wherein it was held that in Income Tax assessment the principle of consistency should be followed. The Tribunal held that the Revenue, if it accepts similar transaction as giving rise to short term capital gain, cannot take a contrary view in assessment for a subsequent assessment year on the same set of facts. It was pointed out that the Hon’ble…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIMENSION CONSULTING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the cross objection of

ITA 1834/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble : & Acit Circle 10(1), Vs. M/S Dimension Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. B-11/8127, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacd 3264 C C.O. 224/Del/2010 [In Ita No. 2321/Del/2010 (A.Y: 2006-07 ) & C.O. 217/Del/2012 M/S Dimension Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Circle 10(1), B-11/8127, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma Sr. DR

…overnment had to collect the tax by way of STT and grant exemption / concession in rate of tax applicable to capital gain. Decisions relied upon by the appellant, particularly, the decision of Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Gopal Purohit vs. JCIT, (2009) 122 TTJ 87 (Mum), which has also been affirmed by the High Court vide order dated 06.01.2010 and also the decision of IT AT Delhi Bench in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain Vs. Addl. CIT, copy of which has been submitted, fully supports the contention of the appellant. In fact the facts of these cases are quite similar to the facts of the case of the appellant a…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIMENSION CONSULTING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the cross objection of

ITA 2321/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble : & Acit Circle 10(1), Vs. M/S Dimension Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. B-11/8127, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacd 3264 C C.O. 224/Del/2010 [In Ita No. 2321/Del/2010 (A.Y: 2006-07 ) & C.O. 217/Del/2012 M/S Dimension Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Circle 10(1), B-11/8127, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma Sr. DR

…overnment had to collect the tax by way of STT and grant exemption / concession in rate of tax applicable to capital gain. Decisions relied upon by the appellant, particularly, the decision of Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Gopal Purohit vs. JCIT, (2009) 122 TTJ 87 (Mum), which has also been affirmed by the High Court vide order dated 06.01.2010 and also the decision of IT AT Delhi Bench in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain Vs. Addl. CIT, copy of which has been submitted, fully supports the contention of the appellant. In fact the facts of these cases are quite similar to the facts of the case of the appellant a…

Gopal Purohit v. Jt. CIT (122 TTJ 87) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax