Growmore Exports Ltd. v. ACIT

78 ITD 95Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2001#10129 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Judgments citing Growmore Exports Ltd. v. ACIT

BELLONA ESTATE DEVELOPERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 6581/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Pande, Sr. DR

Section 139(9)Section 250Section 28Section 44Section 44A

…07) 163 Taxman 154\n(Raj.), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that “total sales\" indicate the\naggregate price of the sales of commodities carried out by the assessee in a\ntrading business. Further, in Growmore Exports Ltd. v/s ACIT, reported in\n[2001] 78 ITD 95 (Mumbai), the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, observed\nas follows:-\n“8. .....In general, turnover is meant to be the sale proceeds of the goods\nsold. In other words, commercially it would mean the amount of money\nturned over or drawn in a business, in a given time (page 1923 of The Law\nLexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar - 1997 edition). Since the…

M/S. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 666/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44A

…and as LTCG. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- 1) Daulat Ram vs. Income Tax Officer, (7 ITD 0789 - ITAT, Delhi Bench) 2) Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Harshad Rambhai Patel (1964) 54 ITR 749 3) Kalyani Exports & Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 78 ITD 95 4) ACIT vs. Dr. Dhurjati Gupta,127 TTJ 356 5) Keshavji Karsondas vs CIT, 73 Taxmann 571 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 6 of 8 10. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has rightly held the same as Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) thereby rejecting the contention of the assessee as the same cannot be termed as Long Ter…

GAURANGBHAI CHIMANBHAI KAPADIA,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, NADIAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1889/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16 Gaurangbhai Chimanbhai Kapadia, Income Tax Officer, House No.836, Muni Ward No.8, Vs Ward-2, Bhavsar Wad, Nadiad, Kheda-387001 Nadiad Pan : Admpk 6603 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr DR

Section 271BSection 44A

…ue involved in this appeal of the assessee is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee. In one of such decisions rendered in the case of Growmore Exports Ltd Vs. ACIT, [2001] 78 ITD 95 (Mum), the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal held that since no delivery had taken place in the speculative transactions, no turnover was effected at all by the assessee and he, therefore, was not liable to get its accounts audited under Section 44AB of the Act and there was no question of imposition of penalty under Section 271B of the Act. In another…

NIRANJAN JATA,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,SALARY CIRCLE-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/CTK/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Dec 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 28Section 43CSection 44ASection 71

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Niranjan Jata, AL-117, VSS Vs. DCIT, Salary Circle 3(1), Nagar, Saheed nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.ADCPJ 5711 A (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR Date of Hearing : 19/12/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31 /12/ 2019 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A),2, Bhubaneswar dated 15.4.2019 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised fol…

JUDE ANGELO MENEZES,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 7(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3126/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3126/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-2016. Jude Angelo Menezes, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.9, 2Nd Kamaraj Street, Non Corporate Ward 7(4) Srinivasa Nagar, Padi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 050. [Pan Alfpm 3068G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…is under bonafide belief that the books of accounts are not liable for audit in the light of the guidance note issued by ICAI, moreover reliance was placed on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Growmore Exports Ltd vs. ACIT, (2001) 78 ITD 95, it was submitted that levy of penalty is not warranted. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 7. record. The only issue in the present appeal relates to levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act. Assessee is undoubte…

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in part

ITA 3087/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

…party - No sale involved in transaction as a person cannot sell to himself and make profit out of himself – Loss arising in such transaction is not allowable as trading loss." 15. The facts in the case of Kalyani Exports & Investments (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2001) 78 ITD 95 (Pune)(TM) are as under: a. Assessee-company had acquired the shares of BFL in March, 1977 followed by issue of bonus shares in June, 1981 and again in October, 1989. b. Shares initially shown as stock in trade were converted into capital asset on 1-7-1988, at original purchase price of Rs. 17 per share, which was the original purchase price in 19…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM INVESTMENTS,, BARODA

ITA 742/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 926/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok KotharyFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 80I

…ovisions for conversion of stock-in-trade into capital assets. Position, however, is now fairly clear due to a few recent decisions. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal, in a third member decision in the case of Kalyani Exports and Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT 78 ITD 95 zerox copy attached) considered a situation where shares were acquired by the assessee in 1977 and held by it as stock-in-trade till 30th June, 1988. These were converted into capital assets on 1st July 1988, and were subsequently sold. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to take the cost of the shares as on the date of acquisition 197…

M/S. DEENSONS TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2774/CHNY/2016[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2774/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Respondent: 29.12.2016

Section 143(3)Section 17Section 21Section 254

…irst date of acquisition has to be adopted as date of acquisition of the asset. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case cited :- 5 -: supra placed reliance on the decision of the Pune Bench of this Tribunal in Kalyani Exports & Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2001) 78 ITD 95 (TM). 5.0 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The question which arises and needs an answer is “what would be the period of holding of the asset-whether it would relate back to the date when (personal) capital asset was converted in to business asset a few years back or the date of conversion now from bus…

M/S. ORION TRAVELS PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC 31, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 939/MUM/2009[1991-1992]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 1991-1992

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Manoj Kumar Agarwal () Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S Orion Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Cc-31 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Pan No. Aaaco1591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ar Respondent By : Dr. P. Daniel, Standing Counsel

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, Standing Counsel

Section 144Section 43(5)

…? The assessee replied vide letter dated 17/09/2007 that the profit from US-64 is speculative profit because the assessee has not taken delivery of US- 64 and therefore it is speculative profit and also relied on the decision of Growmore Exports Ltd. Vs. ACIT 78 ITD 95. The assessee claimed that the profit from US-64 is speculative profit and is eligible to be set off against loss from shares. The AO relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002) Page 2 of 19 Assessment Year: 1991-92 122 Taxman 562, held that since the unit of UTI are not treated as share under C…

VINNY SAWHNEY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 993/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.993/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Vinny Sawhney, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: T.N. Marketing, V. Business Ward Xv(3) / 3B, D Block, Venus Colony, Non-Corporate Ward 3(5), Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaapv 4423 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Guru Bashyam, JCIT

Section 2Section 54F

…asset. According to the Ld. counsel, a property can be acquired only once irrespective of the character at the point of acquisition. Placing reliance on the decision of the Pune Bench of this Tribunal in Kalyani Exports & Investment (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2001) 78 ITD 95 (TM), the Ld.counsel submitted that whether the property in question becomes capital 3 I.T.A. No.993/Mds/15 asset by the act of the assessee or amendment to the law is irrelevant. According to the Ld. counsel, there can be one date of acquisition. This decision of the Pune Bench of this Tribunal was followed by this Bench of the Tribunal in ACI…