Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT

57 ITR 21Supreme Court of India1965#1690 most cited

What is Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT authority for?

The onus is on the Income Tax Department to prove that a particular receipt or amount is taxable and falls under the provisions of the Income-tax Act.

67

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT · 57 ITR 21 · onus of proof · burden on revenue · taxable receipt · department's onus · Section 143(3) · Section 69C · Section 132 · Section 153A · income tax · proving income.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 69CSection 10(38)Section 132Section 153ASection 271AAB
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementsection 271aabbogus long term capital gainretracted statementdumb documentstransfer of capital assetshort term capital gainsection 10(38)long term capital gainsloose papersdocuments seizedsection 45

Judgments citing Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, Pune

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1300/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 148

…n to the said paragraph 5.3 of CIT(A)‟s order and submitted that the CIT(A) granted relief relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Roopa J Gupta the case of CIT Vs. PKN Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC), Saroj Kumar Majumdar Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) and the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit in ITA No.1121 of 2009, dated 06.01.2010. Further, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted the issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the order of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Apoorva Patni Vs. Addl.CIT in ITA No.239/PN/2011, relating to assessment y…

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, Pune

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1299/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 148

…n to the said paragraph 5.3 of CIT(A)‟s order and submitted that the CIT(A) granted relief relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Roopa J Gupta the case of CIT Vs. PKN Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC), Saroj Kumar Majumdar Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) and the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit in ITA No.1121 of 2009, dated 06.01.2010. Further, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted the issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the order of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Apoorva Patni Vs. Addl.CIT in ITA No.239/PN/2011, relating to assessment y…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mohinder Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2310/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…nhancement of value by realizing a security or is it a 8 ITA.Nos.2309 & 2310/Del./2011 Shri Arjun Puri And Shri Mohinder Puri, New Delhi. gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making”, (ii) In Janaki Ram Bahadur Ram V. CIT 57 ITR 21 (SC) it was held that the nature of the transaction must be determined on the consideration of all the facts and circumstances which are brought on the record of the Income Tax Authorities. The court observed that a transaction of purchase of land can not be assumed without more to be venture in the nature of trade. The mere fact that the owner of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Arjun Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2309/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…nhancement of value by realizing a security or is it a 8 ITA.Nos.2309 & 2310/Del./2011 Shri Arjun Puri And Shri Mohinder Puri, New Delhi. gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making”, (ii) In Janaki Ram Bahadur Ram V. CIT 57 ITR 21 (SC) it was held that the nature of the transaction must be determined on the consideration of all the facts and circumstances which are brought on the record of the Income Tax Authorities. The court observed that a transaction of purchase of land can not be assumed without more to be venture in the nature of trade. The mere fact that the owner of…

Mahaveer Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 209/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (Addl.CIT)
Section 2(14)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 209/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke Shri Mahaveer Yadav Income Tax Officer Vs. S/o Shri Gangadeen, Ward-1(5) VPO- Budhi Bawal, Tehsil- Alwar Kotkasim, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BNOPM8131L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenu…

Pradeep Vatrana, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 930/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P. P. Meena (JCIT)
Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 930/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 Pradeep Vatrana cuke DCIT, Vs. C/o M/s K.L.Datta & Co. CA. Circle-2, Vashitha Plaza 2, Mannu Marg, Alwar Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAQPV7801C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri P. P.…

Vidyasagar M.P Sah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 527/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vidyasagar M. P. Sah Dy. Cit-23(3), बनाम/ 22-A, Bandstand Society, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 197-C, Kane Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafps 5412 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Aarjoo Garodia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.01.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs.3,51,66,426/- Treated As Business Income 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs.3,51,66,426/- As 'Business Income1 Without Appreciating The Crucial Facts That The Assessee Is A Professional / Consultant For Exploration & Drilling Activities For Oil Wells / Rigs Etc. Which Is The Principal Source Of Income Since 32 Years, Wherein He Has To Devote Maximum Time & The Activity Has Been Accepted By The Department In All The Prior Years As Well As In The Relevant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Aarjoo Garodia

…that purchase with an intention to resale in order to gain profit will be business profit depending on the circumstances of the case tike nature quantity of purchase and nature operation involved. It was also held in the case of Janki Ram Bahadur Ram vs. CIT 57 ITR 21 (SC) that no single fact has any decisive significance and the question must be answered depending on the collective effect of all relevant material brought on record. 14. Keeping in view the above principles, the facts in the present case of the assessee are examined. The assessee during the entire previous year had entered into transaction of pur…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Pratima Sankhla, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 605/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 54B

…of assessee show that assessee is an investor. The following cases relied by the A.R. also support the case of assessee. (a) M/s. SKM Construction Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) 2011-TIOL-470 (b) Saroj Kumar Majumdar (SC) (37 ITR 242) (c) Janki Ram Badhurram (SC) (57 ITR 21) (d) Michael A Kallivayalil (Kerala) 102 ITR 202 (e) Sairam (2002) (Madras) 242 ITR 104 On similar facts and circumstances in case of Shri Ashok Sankhala (husband of assessee) in A.Y. 2010-11 (ITA No.877/2011- 12), he has been treated as investor, not being indulged in the business of real estate. Therefore, considering all these facts and case…

Mega City Development Corporation, Chennai vs. ACIT(OSD), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3255/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Nandakumar, JCIT
Section 143(2)

…ther income that is realised from the sale of land is chargeable to Income-tax as capital gains or, otherwise, as income from business. This has been the subject- matter of a considerable amount of judicial precedent. In Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC) the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines (head-note) : "If a transaction is related to the business which is normally carried on by the assessee, though not directly part of it, an intention to launch upon an adventure in the nature of trade may readily be inferred. A similar inference would arise where a commodity is pur chased…

Kakb Developers, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 3 (4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3254/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Nandakumar, JCIT
Section 143(2)

…ther income that is realised from the sale of land is chargeable to Income-tax as capital gains or, otherwise, as income from business. This has been the subject- matter of a considerable amount of judicial precedent. In Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC) the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines (head-note) : "If a transaction is related to the business which is normally carried on by the assessee, though not directly part of it, an intention to launch upon an adventure in the nature of trade may readily be inferred. A similar inference would arise where a commodity is pur chased…

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

…(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 ITR 21(SC) " Commissioner of Income tax v Vikram Cotton Mills Limited [1988] 169 ITR 597(SC) " Vinod M Shah v Additional Commissioner of Income tax [2010] 38 SOT 503 (ITAT-Mumbai) " Commissioner of Income tax v Laxmi Surgical (P) Limited [1993] 202 ITR 601 (HC-Bombay) " Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v M/s. SMK Shares & Stock Broking Private Limited (I…

Sanjay J Ahuja, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5731/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Ramlal Negishri Sanjay J. Ahuja, 202, Flat No.11, Shahnaj Building, New New India Bank, S.V.Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Adepa 2739H ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer 19(3)(4), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai 400 011 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Kardam
Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAMLAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Sanjay J. Ahuja, 202, Flat No.11, Shahnaj Building, New New India Bank, S.V.Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 PAN:ADEPA 2739H ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer 19(3)(4), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai 400 011 .... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Haridas Bhat Respondent by : Shri A.K.Kardam Date of hearing : 17/10/2016 Date of pronouncement : 09/12/2016 ORDER PER B.R.BASKARAN,A.M: The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order da…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1527/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Kumar Mazumdar vs CIT reported in (1959) 37 ITR 242 (SC) (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram vs CIT reported in (1065) 57 ITR 21 (SC). 5.8.1. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Circular issued on this subject. Keeping in mind, the above broad principles, we shall now examine the case of the assessee. The assessee during the previous year had entered into transactions of purchase of shares giving rise to short term capital gain. As far as short ter…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Kumar Mazumdar vs CIT reported in (1959) 37 ITR 242 (SC) (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram vs CIT reported in (1065) 57 ITR 21 (SC). 5.8.1. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Circular issued on this subject. Keeping in mind, the above broad principles, we shall now examine the case of the assessee. The assessee during the previous year had entered into transactions of purchase of shares giving rise to short term capital gain. As far as short ter…

D.C.I.T CC - VIII, 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

…of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT, 57 ITR 21 (SC). 9. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Instruction No.1827 dated 31.8.1989 referred to by the AO in the order of assessment and Circular No.4 of 2007 dated 15 June 2007. CBDT has recently issued Circular No.6/2016 dated 29.2.2016 clarifying on taxability on income earned from sale of shares and other securities and…

Mr. Chetan Kantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(3), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 637/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)

…of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT, 57 ITR 21 (SC). 12. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Circular referred to by the AO in the order of assessment. Keeping in mind, the above broad principles, we shall now examine the case of the assessee. The assessee during the previous year had entered into transactions of purchase of shares of about 38 companies totaling to Rs…

DCIT Cir - 6, Kolkata. vs. M/S K.B. Capital Markets Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &
Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

…of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT, 57 ITR 21 (SC). 15. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Circular referred to by the learned DR before us. Keeping in mind, the above broad principles, we shall now examine the case of the assessee. The factors which go in favour of the Assessee that the income in question is short term capital gain (STCG) are as follows: 1. The fa…

Kb Capital Markets (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I, .T Cir - 6, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &
Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

…of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT, 57 ITR 21 (SC). 15. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Circular referred to by the learned DR before us. Keeping in mind, the above broad principles, we shall now examine the case of the assessee. The factors which go in favour of the Assessee that the income in question is short term capital gain (STCG) are as follows: 1. The fa…

DCIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata vs. M/S. Hobb International Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 1383/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1383/Kol/2010 Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niloy Baran Som JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT, 57 ITR 21 (SC). 10. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Instruction No.1827 dated 31.8.1989 referred to by the AO in the order of assessment and Circular No.4 of 2007 dated 15 June 2007. CBDT has recently issued Circular No.6/2016 dated 29.2.2016 clarifying on taxability on income earned from sale of shares and other securities and…

ITO, Ward - 12(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Manimaya Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 439/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Sallong yaden, Addl.CIT,Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

…of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT, 57 ITR 21 (SC). 10.1. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Circular issued on the issue. Keeping in mind, the above broad principles, we shall now examine the case of the assessee. The assessee during the previous year had entered into transactions of purchase of shares giving raise to short term capital gain. As far as short term c…