Jivat Lal Purtapshi v. CIT (

156 ITR 835High Court1985#7273 most cited
15

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

Issues it is cited on

section 44aarejection of books of accountsection 145(3)section 145section 44section 133section 133asection 131section 139(1)incriminating materialsection 69section 142(1)

Judgments citing Jivat Lal Purtapshi v. CIT (

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

…, but the income-tax authorities shall have to follow the principle of consistency. We rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT, 193 ITR 321, the decision of M.P. High Court in the case of Godavari Corporation, 156 ITR 835, decision of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Satish Panalal Shah, 249 ITR 221 and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Escorts Ltd., 338 ITR 435. Therefore, identical issue considered and decided in earlier years in favour of the assessee by the AO as well as by the Tribunal in various years should have been followed by…

M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 379/ALLD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

…, but the income-tax authorities shall have to follow the principle of consistency. We rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT, 193 ITR 321, the decision of M.P. High Court in the case of Godavari Corporation, 156 ITR 835, decision of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Satish Panalal Shah, 249 ITR 221 and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Escorts Ltd., 338 ITR 435. Therefore, identical issue considered and decided in earlier years in favour of the assessee by the AO as well as by the Tribunal in various years should have been followed by…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. PSA CONSTRUCTION, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 145/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250(4)Section 253

…ng the taxable income of the assessee should be applied in the other years also. In support of such contention ld. AR has relied upon the following case laws :- i) Radhasaomisatsang Vs. CIT, (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) ii) CIT Vs. Godavari Corporation Ltd, (1985) 156 ITR 835 (Madhya Pradesh High Court) iii) ITO Vs. TEjmalbhai & Co., (2006) 99 ITD 399 (ITAT Rajkot Tribunal) iv) Indian Herbs Research & supply vs. ACIT, (2006) 25 CCH 0091. 15. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the case laws placed before us to support the contentions by the parties. On perusal of the…

ITO (E)- 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ANUSANDHAN TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6424/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: 11.08.2021
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)

…o be followed in the absence of any change in facts. Reliance is placed on a. Radhasaomi Satsang v. CIT ( 1 93 ITR 32 1 )(SC) b. H.A. Shah & Co. v. CIT 30 ITR 618)(Bom HC) c. Jivat Lal Purtapshi v. CIT (65 ITR 261)(Bom HC) d. CIT v. Godavari Corporation Ltd. (156 ITR 835)(MP HC) 11. In view of the foregoing facts and submissions and various judicial pronouncements of the Jurisdictional High Court, the Appellant most humbly submits 12 Anusandhan Trust that it be held that the earmarked grants be allowed to be treated as income of the trust and expenditure against the same be allowed as per the provisions of the…

ANUSANDHAN TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6221/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: 11.08.2021
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)

…o be followed in the absence of any change in facts. Reliance is placed on a. Radhasaomi Satsang v. CIT ( 1 93 ITR 32 1 )(SC) b. H.A. Shah & Co. v. CIT 30 ITR 618)(Bom HC) c. Jivat Lal Purtapshi v. CIT (65 ITR 261)(Bom HC) d. CIT v. Godavari Corporation Ltd. (156 ITR 835)(MP HC) 11. In view of the foregoing facts and submissions and various judicial pronouncements of the Jurisdictional High Court, the Appellant most humbly submits 12 Anusandhan Trust that it be held that the earmarked grants be allowed to be treated as income of the trust and expenditure against the same be allowed as per the provisions of the…

DCIT CC 3(4) CE RG 3, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar/ ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Vora Prasad Gude
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…d – 2.7.1 H.A. Shah & Co. V. CIT (30 ITR 618) (BOM) 2.7.2 Burmah Shell V. Chand (61 ITR 493)(BOM) 11 A.Y.2012-13 2.7.3 Radhasoami Satsang V CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) 2.7.4 CIT Vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276) (Del) 2.7.5 CIT V Godavari Corporation Ltd. (156 ITR 835)(MP) 2.7.6 CIT V Bhilai Engg. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (133 ITR 687)(MP) 2.7.7 Sardar Kehar Singh V. CIT (195 ITR 769) 2.8 . You will appreciate that in the case of Shambhu Investment it was nobody's case that in the earlier years similar income was charged to tax 'Income from Business'. The factual position in my case is different from the case bef…

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARIAN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 331/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Acit-Cc-3(4) Central Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-3 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp, Holy Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400050. 400020. Co. No.134/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 331/Mum/2015) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani Acit-Cc-24 & 26 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Vs. Andrews Road, Opp, Holy Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Family Hospital, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabpb9150H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6807/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Acit Cc-24 & 26 Central Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-5 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Room No.404, 4Th Floor Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400050. 400020. Co. No.41/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 6153/Mum/2014) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani Acit Cc-24 & 26 Central 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-5 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Room No.404, 4Th Floor Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ds to be followed – 2.7.1 H.A. Shah & Co. V. CIT (30 ITR 618) (BOM) 2.7.2 Burmah Shell V. Chand (61 ITR 493)(BOM) 2.7.3 Radhasoami Satsang V CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) 2.7.4 CIT Vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276) (Del) 2.7.5 CIT V Godavari Corporation Ltd. (156 ITR 835)(MP) 2.7.6 CIT V Bhilai Engg. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (133 ITR 687)(MP) 2.7.7 Sardar Kehar Singh V. CIT (195 ITR 769) 2.8 . You will appreciate that in the case of Shambhu Investment it was nobody's case that in the earlier years similar income was charged to tax 'Income from Business'. The factual position in my case is different from the case bef…

HIMACHAL PRADESH BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,KANGRA vs. DCIT (E), C-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 10

…gation, earlier decision on same question should not be reopened unless new facts came to the knowledge”. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs CIT 193 ITR 321 and Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Godavari Corporation Ltd. 156 ITR 835 held that, “Rule of consistency shall ITA 348&349/CHD/2018 A.Y.2008-09& 2013-14 Page 8 of 9 have to be maintained in income tax proceedings”. In the present case, despite giving several opportunities to the ld. counsel for the assessee, no evidence or material is produced before us to distinguish the case of the assessee from that of assessment…

SANAT M. DALAL SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6461/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 73

…me Court, the order of the Tribunal was restored. 14 . Similar view has been expressed in the case of Rani Ratnesh Kurnar in 123 ITR 3433 (All) and in the case of Hindustan Industrial Agencies P Ltd in 135 ITR 436(Bom) and in the case of Godavari Corpn Ltd in 156 ITR 835 (MP). 15. In the present case also the facts are similar to the facts before the Apex Court-in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd (supra) as the assesses was authorized under the Memorandum of Association to buy and sell shares. The profit was included in the profit and loss account and not in any separate reserve account. The purc…

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE TWINE MILLS PVT. LTD,, RAJAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 458/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…s. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) CIT vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2 Thus, it was contended that the year on year payment which have been accepted and allowed as deduction in the earlier assessment years in the case of ass…

SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE TWINE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,,RAJAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 404/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…s. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) CIT vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2 Thus, it was contended that the year on year payment which have been accepted and allowed as deduction in the earlier assessment years in the case of ass…

SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE TWINE MILLS PVT. LTD.,,RAJAM vs. THE ITO,, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 349/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…s. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) CIT vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2 Thus, it was contended that the year on year payment which have been accepted and allowed as deduction in the earlier assessment years in the case of ass…

THE DCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI VARALAKSHMI JUTE MILLS PVT LTD,, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 340/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…s. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) CIT vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2 Thus, it was contended that the year on year payment which have been accepted and allowed as deduction in the earlier assessment years in the case of ass…

ANAND R BAHL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed and that by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7706/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Hiten M. Vasant (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth (DR)
Section 2(14)

…ITR 685 (SC); Lakshminarayan Ram Gopan and Son Ltd. vs. The Government of Hyderabad 1954] 25 ITR 449 (SC); Allahabad Bank ltd. vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 519 (SC); CIT vs. Smt. Minal Rameshchandra [1987] 167 ITR 0507 (Guj); CIT vs .Godavari Corporation Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 835 (Mad); CIT vs. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 173 (Guj); A.P. Damodara Shenoy vs. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 0650 (Bom); W.L. Knopp vs. CIT [1948] 16 ITR 398 (Mad); Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [1940] 8 ITR 635 (PC) 6.3 We may next examine the facts of the case. The first thing that strikes us is that the assessee is a trade…

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S A.K.G FINVEST LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1341/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 73

…mes on 22 different dates and sold on 5 different dates. (ii) Utilization of interest bearing borrowed fund in purchase of shares is a strong circumstances of trading in shares. The Hon'ble Madhaya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs Godabari Corp. Ltd. (156 ITR 835) has supported this view. On perusal of P&L A/c., it is found that the assessee has paid interest of Rs.20.6 6lakhs. (iii) The purchase and sale of share is not an isolated incident in assessee's case. The assessee is engaged in purchase and sale of shares in regular course and that too in a bulk. In fact, the main and sole activity of the assess…

Jivat Lal Purtapshi v. CIT ( (156 ITR 835) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax