Holck Larsen v. CIT

85 ITR 285High Court1972#14461 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing Holck Larsen v. CIT

Sills Karingattil Jose, Nedumkandom vs. ITO Ward 2, Thodupuzha

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

…rovisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal relied upon the decision in the case of Kumar Pappu Singh v. Dy. CIT### and in the case of Asst. CIT v. Y. Venkanna Choudary*#. *[2014] 45 taxmann.com 176 (Mumbai). **[1967] 63 ITR651 (SC). ***[1972] 85 ITR 285 (Bom). #[2020] 119 taxmann.com 362 (Jaipur). ##[2021] 92 ITR (Trib) 332 (Mumbai); [2022] 136 taxmann.com 42 (Mumbai). ###[2019] 101 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam). *#[2019] 112 taxmann.com 71 (Visakhapatnam). Page No : 0639 The Tribunal, therefore, held that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked in respect of additi…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1643/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shibaji Simlai, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…un Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT [1967] I.T.A Nos. 1541 & 1643/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 17 Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah 63 ITR 651 (SC) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of H. Holck Larsen v. CIT [1972] 85 ITR 285 (Bom) held that as long as there is no disproportional allotment of shares, there was no scope for any property being received by the tax payer as there was only an apportionment of the value of the existing shareholder over a larger number of shares, and hence no addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act would arise. If the shares are allotted strict…

Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1541/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shibaji Simlai, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

JCIT, Special Range-10, New Delhi vs. Bhanu Chopra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 167/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryjt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sh. Bhanu Chopra, Tax,Special Range-10, M-140, Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Agwpc5625R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriIshtiyaqueAdhmed, Ld. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Sharma, Ld. Adv

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(xv)Section 250(6)Section 49(4)Section 55Section 55(2)(a)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…-, gets apportioned over two shares as against one earlier, which is aIready the shareholders‟ property. This is also the basis and the premise of the decisions in ie case of DhunDadabhoyKapadia vs. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC) and H. Hoick Larsen vs. IT [1972] 85 ITR 285 (Bom), relied upon and referred to by the parties before us. As long as, therefore, there is no disproportionate allotment, i.e. shares are allotted pro-rata to the shareholders, based on their existing holdings, there is no scope for any property being received by them on the said allotment of shares: there being only an apportionment of the valu…

JCIT, Special Range-10, New Delhi vs. Arvind Sehgal, New Delhi

ITA 168/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryjt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sh Arvind Sehgal, Tax,Special Range-10, E-70, First Floor, New Delhi Kalkaji, Delhi Pan: Aohps1311R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manu Chourasia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manu K. Giri, Ld. And Ms. Sonia Dodeja, Ld. Advs

Section 2(24)(xv)Section 250(6)Section 55Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…gets apportioned over two shares as against one earlier, which is already the shareholders‟ property. This is also the basis and the premise of the decisions in ie case of Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC) and H. Hoick Larsen vs. IT [1972] 85 ITR 285 (Bom), relied upon and referred to by the parties before us. As long as, therefore, there is no disproportionate allotment, i.e. shares are allotted pro-rata to the shareholders, based on their existing holdings, there is no scope for any property being received by them on the said allotment of shares: there being only an apportionment of the valu…

DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Smt. Veena Goayal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 75/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tantiwala (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…additional income in the hands of the assessee. The Mumbai ITAT following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H. Holck Larsen vs. CIT (1972) 85 ITR 285 (Bom) held that as long as there is no disproportional allotment of shares, there was no scope for any property being received by the tax payer as there was only an apportionment of the value of the existing shareholder over a larger number of shares, no addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act would arise in the present case. In view of the decision…

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

…TTJ 1132 (Del). l) Reliance is also placed on the following decisions, wherein it has been consistently held that frequency or volume of transactions does not simpliciter characterize the income from sale of shares as business income: i. Holck Larsen v. CIT: 85 ITR 285 (SC) ii. J. M. Share & Stock Brokers Limited V. JCIT: ITA No. 2801/ Mum/ 00 iii. ACIT V. Motilal Oswal: [2006] 8 SOT 771 (Mum.) iv. Janak S. Rangwalla V. ACIT: [2007] 11 SOT 627 (Mum.) v. Shah-La Investments and Financial Consultants (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT: 2 SOT 371 (Hyd. Tri.) vi. ACIT v. Shri Sunder Iyer: ITA No. 295/Mum/2001 (share broker) vii. S…