Income Tax Officer (2008) 5 DTR (Mum) 29 Shri Navinchandra N. Majithia 401, CIT v. Gopal Purohit

Q: How many judgments cite Income Tax Officer (2008) 5 DTR (Mum) 29 Shri Navinchandra N. Majithia 401, CIT v. Gopal Purohit?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite Income Tax Officer (2008) 5 DTR (Mum) 29 Shri Navinchandra N. Majithia 401, CIT v. Gopal Purohit (334 ITR 308), spanning 2016 to 2025.

334 ITR 308Supreme Court of India2011#8997 most cited

What is Income Tax Officer (2008) 5 DTR (Mum) 29 Shri Navinchandra N. Majithia 401, CIT v. Gopal Purohit authority for?

Frequency of transactions, volume, magnitude, use of borrowed funds, period of holding, and assessee's infrastructure are key factors in determining whether transactions constitute business income or capital gains, based on the facts of each case.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Shri Navinchandra N. Majithia · CIT v. Gopal Purohit · frequency of transactions · business income · capital gains · volume · magnitude · borrowed funds · period of holding · infrastructure

Judgments citing Income Tax Officer (2008) 5 DTR (Mum) 29 Shri Navinchandra N. Majithia 401, CIT v. Gopal Purohit

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…would be followed in subsequent years. To the same effect are the following decisions rendered by the various benches of the Hon’ble Tribunal:  CIT v. Gopal Purohit: 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) (Supreme Court has dismissed the departmental appeal vide CC 16802/2010: 334 ITR 308 (St.))  Jindal Photo Investment Ltd.: 334 ITR 307 (St.) (SC)  CIT v. Rohit Anand: 327 ITR 445 (Del)  CIT v. Vinay Mittal: 208 Taxman 106 (Del) [SLP dismissed by SC]  CIT v. Devasan Investment Pvt. Ltd. : 365 ITR 452 (Del) (Supreme Court has dismissed the Department’s SLP vide CC 17946/2014 : 229 Taxman 496)  CIT v. Consolidated Finvest and H…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

R. K. Trading Company, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT. Cir 5(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2609/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2609/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) R. K. Trading Company Dy.Cit बनाम/ 89, Hirabhai Market, Circle – 5(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Diwan Ballubhai Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfr0845B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से / Ms. Anam Benish, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 10/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/12/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.10.2017 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad – 5 (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2016 Passed By The Learned Acit, Circle-5(3), Ahmedabad Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2014-15. Ita No. 2609/Ahd/2017 (R. K. Trading Company Vs. Dcit) A.Y. 2014-15 - 2 - 2. Ground Nos. 1 To 3 Relates To Disallowance Of Donation Given By The Assessee To M/S. Herbicure Healthcare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation, Kolkata. At The Very Threshold Of The Matter, Ld. Advocate Appearing For The Assessee Submitted Before Us That The Issue Is Squarely Covered By The Judgment Passed By The Co-Ordinate Bench In Ita No. 2888/Ahd/2017, On 20.09.2019 In Favour Of The Assessee, Whereas, Ld. Dr Relied Upon The Orders Passed By The Authorities Below.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)

…of consistency desired to be followed as has been held in various below mentioned case laws: (i) DCIT Vs. Sulabh International Social Service Organisation [350ITR 189 (Patna)] (ii) CIT Vs. Ranganathar& Co. [316 ITR 252 (Mad)] (iii) Gopal Purohit Vs. Jt. CIT [334 ITR 308 (SC] The appellant has furnished before the AO complete details in respect of the expenditure in question and has also furnished copies of the bills/vouchers. Therefore, it emerges from the records of proceedings that the expenditure in question had been incurred in the normal course of the business of the appellant and the same had been incurred…

DCIT Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Alpeshkumar C.Patel, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1991/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh CIT. D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 41(1)Section 54F

…iple of consistency required to be followed as has been held in various below mentioned case laws: (i) DCIT Vs. Sulabh International Social Service Organisation [350 ITR 189 (Patna)] (ii) CIT Vs. Ranganathar& Co. [316 ITR 252 (Mad)] GopalPurphit Vs. Jt. CIT [334 ITR 308 (SC] (ii) In view of the above, it is my considered opinion that the appellant is not involved in the trading of the land but he is investor and an agriculturist. Therefore, I am inclined to hold accordingly and direct the AO to treat the said income as income from capital gains. The findings of AO that the income to be treated as emanating from…

M/S. Armee Infotech, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No.1778/Ahd/2016 (by Revenue) is dismissed, and ITA No

ITA 1900/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1778/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit,Cir.6(1), Vs. Armee Infotech Ahmedabad. 1002, Akik Building Opp: Rajpath Club, Sg Highway, Ahmedabad 380 0054. Pan : Aaifa 4964 D

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma

Section 143(2)

…of consistency desired to be followed as has been held in various below mentioned case laws: (i) DCIT Vs. Sulabh International Social Service Organisation [350ITR 189 (Patna)] (ii) CIT Vs. Ranganathar& Co. [316 ITR 252 (Mad)} (in) Gopal Purohit Vs. Jt. CIT [334 ITR 308 (SC] The appellant has furnished before the AO complete details in respect of the expenditure in question and has also furnished copies of the bills/vouchers. Therefore, it emerges from the records of proceedings that the expenditure in question had been incurred in the normal course of the business of the appellant and the same had been incurre…

The ACIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad vs. Armee Infotech, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No.1778/Ahd/2016 (by Revenue) is dismissed, and ITA No

ITA 1778/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma

Section 143(2)

…of consistency desired to be followed as has been held in various below mentioned case laws: (i) DCIT Vs. Sulabh International Social Service Organisation [350ITR 189 (Patna)] (ii) CIT Vs. Ranganathar& Co. [316 ITR 252 (Mad)} (in) Gopal Purohit Vs. Jt. CIT [334 ITR 308 (SC] The appellant has furnished before the AO complete details in respect of the expenditure in question and has also furnished copies of the bills/vouchers. Therefore, it emerges from the records of proceedings that the expenditure in question had been incurred in the normal course of the business of the appellant and the same had been incurre…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Wig Investment, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4141/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…cannot be treated as stock-in-trade for earning business income, he relied upon various judgments including that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582 (Bombay) SLP of which has been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (334 ITR 308); Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. PNB Finance & Industries Ltd. (2010) 236 CTR; and lastly, Bhanuprasad D. Trivedi (HUF) reported in (2018) 95 taxmann.com19. 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders as well as material referred to before us. The ld. AO has first of all has…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Wig Investment, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2167/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

Ketan Pravinchandra Kamdar, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 135/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ketan Pravinchandra Dcit, Central Circle- Kamdar, 111, Loha Bhavan, Vs. 7(3) Erstwhile- Acit, P.D. Mello Road, Carnac Central Circle-42, Bunder, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpk6092R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Paresh Shaparia, Ar Revenue By : Mr. B. Srinivas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Paresh Shaparia, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Srinivas, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)

…ular No. 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 in relation to determining tax, (ii) Copy of ITAT order in the case of Shri P.N. Kamdar v. ACIT, (iii) List of Case Laws relied upon (iv) Copy of Orders (1) CIT v. Gopal Purohit (2010) 228 CTR 582 (Bom.) S.L.P. rejected (2011) 334 ITR 308 (SC) (St.), (2) Jaya Chheda v. ACIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com 152 (Bom.) dated 08.11.2017, (3a) CIT v. Naishadh V. Vachharajani (Bom.) 2011-TIOL-663, (3b) Naishadh v. Vachhariajani v. ACIT ITA No. 6429/Mum/2009. (ITAT Mumbai) (4) Pr. CIT v. Bhanuprasad D Trivedi (HUF) [2017] 87 taxmann.com 137 (Guj.), (5) Dr. Rahul Doctor v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITA No…

D.C.I.T.-Circle-5, Kolkata vs. M/S Pacific Plantations Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 39/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Nov 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Patodi, FCA

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…cannot be faulted. The Revenue did not furnish any justification for adopting a divergent approach for the assessment year in question.” The SLP filed by the revenue against the said decision has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in 334 ITR 308 (St.). The ld. AR also relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur vs Shri Mahendra Kumar Bader in ITA No.605/JP/2013 where the Hon’ble ITAT has considered the same identical issue. 6.3. Having heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is merit…

Navinchandra N . Majithia, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 445 (Del.), Janak S. Rangwala vs ACIT 11 SOT 627 (Mum.), Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2008) 5 DTR (Mum) 29 Shri Navinchandra N. Majithia 401, CIT vs Gopal Purohit (2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.)(SLP dismissed by Supreme Court in 334 ITR 308)(St.)(SC). So far as, the frequency of transaction is concerned, it depends upon volume, magnitude, use of borrowed funds, period of holding, infrastructure of the assessee, etc and facts of each case. The ratio laid down in Karishma Sha vs ACIT (ITA No.2735/Mum/2009) order dated 23/07/2010, where there were transactions of 138 purchases and 107…

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

…purchase of shares, considering the intention behind such investments, the gains realized there from have been held to be taxable under the head ‗capital gains‘ instead of ‗business income‘: i. CIT v. Gopal Purohit: 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) (SLP dismissed by SC at 334 ITR 308 (st.)) ii. Jindal Photo Investment Ltd.: 334 ITR 308 (St.) (SC) iii. CIT vs M/s Devasan Investments Pvt. Ltd.[2014]: SLP(C) No. 30606 of 2014 (SC) iv. CIT v. Rohit Anand: 327 ITR 445 (Del.) v. CIT v Consolidated Finvest and Holding Ltd (2011) 337 ITR 264 (Delhi) vi. CIT v. Avinash Jain : 214 Taxman 260 (Del) vii. CIT v. PNB Finance & Industries L…