Janak S. Rangwalla v. Asstt. CIT

11 SOT 627Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#1541 most cited

What is Janak S. Rangwalla v. Asstt. CIT authority for?

The rule of consistency applies to the characterization of income from the sale of shares or mutual funds. If the Revenue has consistently accepted an assessee as an investor, treating income from such transactions as capital gains in prior years, it cannot arbitrarily re-characterize similar transactions as business income in subsequent assessment years without a fundamental change in facts.

73

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

Janak S. Rangwalla v. Asstt. CIT · 11 SOT 627 · rule of consistency · capital gains · business income · sale of shares · sale of mutual funds · investor or trader · re-characterization of income · Section 45 · Section 10(38) · income tax proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 68Section 10(34)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

period of holdingshort term capital gainsrule of consistencysection 10(34)section 14a(2)date of transfersection 45short term capital gaindisallowance under section 14asection 10(38)long term capital gainsliable to tax

Judgments citing Janak S. Rangwalla v. Asstt. CIT

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-11, New Delhi

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…purchase of investments, from analysis carried out at page 526 of objections in Form 35A. It is not the case that the assessee has indulged in regular trading in shares on day to day basis. 65.38. The Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Janak S. Rangwala (11 SOT 627) observed that mere volume and magnitude of transaction will not alter the nature of transaction if the intention was to hold the shares as investment and not in stock in trade. Investments in mutual funds – 65.39. Out of the total income earned from mutual funds, almost 67.34% of the total income earned from investments made in mutual funds was f…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…purchase of investments, from analysis carried out at page 526 of objections in Form 35A. It is not the case that the assessee has indulged in regular trading in shares on day to day basis. 65.38. The Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Janak S. Rangwala (11 SOT 627) observed that mere volume and magnitude of transaction will not alter the nature of transaction if the intention was to hold the shares as investment and not in stock in trade. 78 Investments in mutual funds – 65.39. Out of the total income earned from mutual funds, almost 67.34% of the total income earned from investments made in mutual funds w…

Shri Sharad Agrawal, Indore vs. The JCIT Range-4, Indore

In the result, all these three appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed

ITA 153/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2009-10

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s not having office or administrative set up, no interest was paid on the funds and there was not a single instance where the assessee squared up the transactions on the same without taking the delivery of shares. The decision in the case of Janak S Ranawala, 11 SOT 627 (Mum.) further supports the case of the assessee. Likewise, the decision from Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs N.S.S. Investment Pvt Ltd. 227 ITR 149 (Mad), CIT vs Associated Industrial Development Company, 82 ITR 526 (SC) supports the case of the assessee. In the present appeal, we note that the assessee made investment in shares with intentio…

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6212/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6212/Mum/2011& 1187/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09& 2009-10)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish V. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Suman Kumar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ee is clear that he wants to earn capital gain on sale of shares. The assessee has also not used any borrowed fund so that it can be said that the assessee has incurred any liability for obtaining the business profit. In the case of Janak S. Rangwala v. ACIT (11 SOT 627 Mum), the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Mumbai has held that the frequency of transaction should not determine the nature of income. If the intention was to earn the capital gain, the AO cannot treat the capital gain as business income. Moreover, consistency has to be maintained in Income tax proceedings if in earlier years, the claim of the assessee was accep…

Raguvalika Trading Pvt Ltd ( Since Merged With M.M.Murarka Share & Securities Pvt Ltd), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 851/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ssed in this issue is whether the frequency of transactions would alone indicate the trading activity. In this regard, we find the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal had an occasion to consider the same in the case of Janak S. Rangwalla v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 11 SOT 627 (Mum), wherein it was held that: "It is the intention of the assessee which is to be seen to determine the nature of transaction conducted by the assessee. Though the investment in shares is on a large magnitude but the same shall not decide the nature of transaction. Similar transactions of sale and purchase of shares in the preceding years have…

Raguvalika Trading Pvt Ltd ( Since Merged With M.M.Murarka Share & Securities Pvt Ltd), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 850/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ssed in this issue is whether the frequency of transactions would alone indicate the trading activity. In this regard, we find the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal had an occasion to consider the same in the case of Janak S. Rangwalla v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 11 SOT 627 (Mum), wherein it was held that: "It is the intention of the assessee which is to be seen to determine the nature of transaction conducted by the assessee. Though the investment in shares is on a large magnitude but the same shall not decide the nature of transaction. Similar transactions of sale and purchase of shares in the preceding years have…

Raguvalika Trading Pvt Ltd ( Since Merged With M.M.Murarka Share & Securities Pvt Ltd), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 849/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ssed in this issue is whether the frequency of transactions would alone indicate the trading activity. In this regard, we find the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal had an occasion to consider the same in the case of Janak S. Rangwalla v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 11 SOT 627 (Mum), wherein it was held that: "It is the intention of the assessee which is to be seen to determine the nature of transaction conducted by the assessee. Though the investment in shares is on a large magnitude but the same shall not decide the nature of transaction. Similar transactions of sale and purchase of shares in the preceding years have…

Raguvalika Trading Pvt Ltd ( Since Merged With M.M.Murarka Share & Securities Pvt Ltd), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 848/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ssed in this issue is whether the frequency of transactions would alone indicate the trading activity. In this regard, we find the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal had an occasion to consider the same in the case of Janak S. Rangwalla v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 11 SOT 627 (Mum), wherein it was held that: "It is the intention of the assessee which is to be seen to determine the nature of transaction conducted by the assessee. Though the investment in shares is on a large magnitude but the same shall not decide the nature of transaction. Similar transactions of sale and purchase of shares in the preceding years have…

ACIT Circle-3 (1), New Delhi vs. Bulls & Bears Portfolio Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2727/DEL/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 43B

…rowed. The payments have been made simultaneous on delivery. To put it in different way, no script has been treated as investment where payments have not been made and / or delivery has not been taken. He also relied on the decision of Janak Rangwala V/s ACIT 11 SOT 627 (Mum) in support of his argument that magnitude of investment is not the deciding factor of nature of investment. 7. We have heard both sides and gone through the relevant material available on record. The AO has observed that the assessee is into stock broking business as well as investor in shares and stocks. The AO has accepted the long term c…

The DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Shri Mayur Mukundbhai Desai, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2017/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 14A

…rrived as under: Closing balance of SSPL as on 31/03/2005 = Rs.13,19,000/- Sale of SSPL shares on 25/05/2009 =Rs. 19,80,000/- Profit - =Rs. 6,61,000/- My attention is drawn to the ratio laid down by ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Janak S. Rangwalla Vs. ACIT [11 SOT 627 (Mumbai)] in which it is held that- ; "In the facts of the present case, the assesses is holding the shares as investment from year to year. It is the intention of the assessee which is to be seen to determine the nature of transaction conducted by the assessee. Though the investment in shares is on a large magnitude but the same shall not decide…

JCIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Supria Poongalia, Mumbai

ITA 2472/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…company could not be treated as investments at one place and stock-in-trade at other place, that there was no reason for the AO to treat the investment in shares by the assessee as stock- in-trade for A.Y.2008-09.He relied upon the cases of Janak S.Rangwalla(11 SOT 627), Gopal Purohit (228 CTR 582), Rohit Anand (327 ITR 445),SMK Shares & Stock Broking Pvt.Ltd.( ITA/799/ Mum/ 2009), Vinod K.Nevatia (ITA/6556/Mum/2009 & 181/Mum/2010).Finally, he allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4.During the course of hearing before us the Departmental Representative(DR) stated that period of holding of the security was very sho…

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)

…under the facts of the case. The case of the assessee is further fortified by these decisions more specifically when the assessee was hold the shares in his books as investor, as well as tock-in-trade separately. The decision in the case of Janak S Ranawala, 11 SOT 627 (Mum.) further supports the case of the assessee. Likewise, the decision from Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs N.S.S. Investment Pvt Ltd. 227 ITR 149 (Mad), CIT vs. Associated Industrial Development Company, 82 ITR 526 (SC) supports the case of the assessee. In the present appeal, we note that the assessee made investment in shares with 3150 &…

JCIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Nirmaladevi Poongalia, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is hereby Dismissed

ITA 2474/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.2474/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Nirmaladevi Poongalia बनाम/ Income Tax 16(3) C/O. Karnavat & Co., Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 2A, Kitab Mahal, 1St Floor, Mumbai – 400007 192, Dr. D.N.Road, Mumbai - 400001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapp8868N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…favour of appellant involving similar facts, and for the sake of brevity, even if they are taken into consideration for arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is an investor the same are not reproduced. However to name a few Janak S. Rangwalla vs ACIT (11 SOT 627), CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom.)(2010), CIT Vs. Rohit Anand (2010) 327 ITR 445 (Del), DCIT Vs. SMK Shares & Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 799/Mum/2009, Vinod K. Nevatia ITA No.6556/Mum/2009 and 181/Mum/2010 and Naishadh V. Vachharajani ITA No.6429/Mum/2009. 9. In view of the detailed discussion of the facts and the legal position and t…

Income Tax Officer-Ward-31(3), Kolkata vs. Dilip B Besai (HUF), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2799/KOL/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shah, FCA
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssed in this issue is whether the frequency of transactions would alone indicate the trading activity. In this regard, we find the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal had an occasion to consider the same in the case of Janak S. Rangwalla v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 11 SOT 627 (Mum), wherein it was held that: "It is the intention of the assessee which is to be seen to determine the nature of transaction conducted by the assessee. Though the investment in shares is on a large magnitude but the same shall not decide the nature of transaction. Similar transactions of sale and purchase of shares in the preceding years have…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Sachin R. Tendulkar, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3217/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 19(3), Shri Sachin R. Tendulkar, R.No.305, 3Rd Floor, 19-A Perry Rd, बनाम/ Pirmal Chanbers, Bandra (E) Vs. Parel Mumbai-400050 Mumbai-400012 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaapt4135B Revenue By Shri Ta Khan (Dr) Respondent By Shri Jitendra Jian (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 25 /01/2017

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…. Nalin Pravin Shah (1575/Mum/2012) Mumbai 2. Nalini Navin Bhagwat (53/Mum/20 10) Mumbai 3. Radha Birju Patel (5382/Mum/2009) Mumbai 4. ARA Trading (13 Taxrnann.com 20) Pune 5. Apoorva Patni (54 SOT 9) Pune 6. KRA Trading (46 SOT 19) Pune 7. Janak S Rangwala (11 SOT 627) Mumbai 8 Sachin R. Tendulkar 11. We have gone through the orders passed by the lower authorities and submissions made and evidences brought before us by both the sides as well as judgments relied upon by the AO, Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. Counsel of the assessee before us. It has been noted by us at the very outset that the Assessing Officer’s m…

Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-41(3), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1213/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06 Surya Prakash Toshniwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Huf, C/O. Narendra Goyal Ward-41(3), 3 & Co., 16, N.S. Road, 2Nd, Government Place, Floor, Kolkata-700 001 Kolkata-7001 [Pan No.Aaghs 7032 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 263Section 68

…tivity to the best of his wisdom. Therefore we do not find any substance in the case before us. In this regard, we find the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal had an occasion to consider the same in the case of Janak S. Rangawalla vs ACIT reported in (2007) 11 SOT 627 (Mum), wherein it was held that : "It is the intention of the assessee which is to be seen to determine the nature of transaction conducted by the assessee. Though the investment in shares is on a large magnitude but the same shall not decide the nature of transaction. Similar transactions of sale and purchase of shares in the preceding years hav…

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

…Commissioner of Income tax v Gulmohar Finance Limited 170 Taxman 483 High Court of Delhi " Sarnath Infrastructure (P) Limited v Assistant Commissioner of Income tax 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 IT…

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…

Kiran D. Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(2)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 335/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Smt. Kiran D. Khandelwal, Vs. Dcit – 30(2) 24(2), A-701, Sahyadri Mumbai Tower,Upper Govind Nagar, Malad (E), Mumbai – 400 007 Pan/Gir No. Acspk8289P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ITA No.827/Mum/2012, dated 5-12- 2014; iv) Darshak Dadbhawala Vs. ACIT, ITA No.3522/Mum/2012, dated 5-12-2014 vi) ACIT Vs. Mrs. Kinnary Sanghavi, 56 Taxmann.com 288; vii) Hitesh Satishchandra Doshi Vs. JCIT, 140 TTJ 32; and viii) Janak s. Rangwalla Vs. ACIT, 11 SOT 627. 6. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective orders and cited at bar by ld. AR and ld. DR during the course of hearing before us in the context of factual matrix of the case.We found t…

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:

…aid down in CIT vs Trishul Investment Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 434 (Mad.), CIT vs Ramamirtham (2008) 306 ITR 239 (Mad.), CIT vs N.S. S. Investment Pvt. Ltd. 277 ITR 149 (Mad.), CIT vs Jubilant Security Pvt. 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, infra…