Karnataka in Bhoruka Engineering India Ltd. v. DCIT

356 ITR 25High Court2013#6364 most cited

What is Karnataka in Bhoruka Engineering India Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Disallowing short-term capital loss on the sale of shares is unjustified when the shares were held as an investment and not for trading purposes.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Bhoruka Engineering India Ltd. v. DCIT · Karnataka HC · 356 ITR 25 · short term capital loss · sale of shares · investment vs trading · capital gains

Judgments citing Karnataka in Bhoruka Engineering India Ltd. v. DCIT

ACIT - 21(2), MUMBAI vs. KALPANA SHRIPAL MORAKHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3003/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

…dgments relied upon by the appellant equally relevant here and applicable to the facts of the instant case viz., CIT v Oberoi Hotels P Ltd. 334 ITR 293 (Cal), Asst. CIT v Biraj Investment P Ltd. 210 Taxman 418 (Guj), Bhoruka Engineering Industries Ltd. v DCIT 356 ITR 25 (Kar). DCIT v Mahendra M Mehta 89 TTJ 1 (Mum-Trib), ADIT v Maersk Line UK Ltd. 149 TTJ 537 (Kol-Trib). CIT vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P Ltd. 326 ITR 1 (SC), Union of India v Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC), CIT vs Special Prints Ltd. 356 ITR 404, DIT (International Taxation) vs Maersk Line UK Ltd. 270 CTR 545 (Cal.). 21. Considering to…

THE DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4345/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2003-2004

Bench: Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Range 7(3)(2), (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Limited

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income (Formerly known as Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan (Before known as Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 PAN/GIR No.AAACN4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) DCIT. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly known as Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before known as Nicholas Piramal…

M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1582/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1582/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Venus Infrastructure & D.C.I.T.,(Osd) Developers (P) Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-8, 801-802, Broadway Business Ahmedabad. Centre, Opp. Mayor’S Bungalow, Law Garden Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aahcs6254J

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, &For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT.D.R
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ A ’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1582/AHD/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Venus Infrastructure & D.C.I.T.,(OSD) Developers (P) Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-8, 801-802, Broadway Business Ahmedabad. Centre, Opp. Mayor’s Bungalow, Law garden Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. PAN: AAHCS6254J And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1568/AHD/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/s. Venus Infrastructure &…

SURYA KANT GUPTA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 4(2), GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7828/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 55(2)(aa)

…& Spencerr (Asia) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 222 (P &H High Court) (v) Banyan & Berry Vs. CIT(1996) 222 ITR 831 (Gujrat High Court ) (vi) CIT Vs. Special Prints Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 404 (Gujrat High Court) 5 Bhourka Engineering Industry Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 356 ITR 25 (Karnataka High Court). 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Lower Authorities have erred in the activity of dealing in shares of HCL Technologies Ltd. as a business activity. The assessee was wholly time involved as managing partner of M/s Hi Row Industries and there was neither an organization activity or trading in shares and there was neither any org…

ADITYA JYOT EYE HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5083/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Londhe, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…not against the law and facts, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable in view of the law settled in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC), Madras High Court in M.V. Vallipan Vs. CIT 170 ITR 238 & Bhoruka Engg. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 356 ITR 25. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. The factual position is not in dispute. The assessee purchased the flat bearing flat no.602, in the building namely Ornate Galaxy, located at L.T. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai. No doubt, the assessee Dr. Natarajan i…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SUNIL HARIPANT POPHALE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 448/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)

…saction was pre-planned, there was nothing to impeach the genuineness of the transaction and hence, capital loss on sale of shares was allowed in the hands of assessee. 26. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Bhoruka Engineering India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 356 ITR 25 (Kar) had also held that where the arrangement, if any, made by assessee does not contravene any statutory provisions and is achieved within four corners of law but the same is entered into as part of tax planning, then no fault can be found with such a transaction. 27. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. V…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT. SUNITA AJAY RAMNATHKAR,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 447/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)

…saction was pre-planned, there was nothing to impeach the genuineness of the transaction and hence, capital loss on sale of shares was allowed in the hands of assessee. 26. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Bhoruka Engineering India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 356 ITR 25 (Kar) had also held that where the arrangement, if any, made by assessee does not contravene any statutory provisions and is achieved within four corners of law but the same is entered into as part of tax planning, then no fault can be found with such a transaction. 27. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. V…

SUNIL HARIPANT POPHALE,,NASHIK vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INOCME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 322/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)

…saction was pre-planned, there was nothing to impeach the genuineness of the transaction and hence, capital loss on sale of shares was allowed in the hands of assessee. 26. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Bhoruka Engineering India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 356 ITR 25 (Kar) had also held that where the arrangement, if any, made by assessee does not contravene any statutory provisions and is achieved within four corners of law but the same is entered into as part of tax planning, then no fault can be found with such a transaction. 27. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. V…

SMT. SUNITA AJAY RAMNATHKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 301/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422403 …. Pan: Aahpp4573G Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Nashik आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 2, Nashik …. Vs. Mr. Sunil Haripant Pophale, C/O Vadivarhe Specialty Chemicals Ltd., Gat No.204, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Vadivarhe, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422403 Pan: Aahpp4573G आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sunita Ajay Ramnathkar, 22, Parijat, 95 Marine Drive, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Mumbai – 400002 …. Pan: Aafpr1193J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 2, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)

…saction was pre-planned, there was nothing to impeach the genuineness of the transaction and hence, capital loss on sale of shares was allowed in the hands of assessee. 26. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Bhoruka Engineering India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 356 ITR 25 (Kar) had also held that where the arrangement, if any, made by assessee does not contravene any statutory provisions and is achieved within four corners of law but the same is entered into as part of tax planning, then no fault can be found with such a transaction. 27. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. V…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 311/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary CIT-D.R
Section 144CSection 36(1)(iii)

…truction Pvt. Ltd. 5. Greenline 50,000 2005-06 10-Feb-06 Builders Ltd. 6. Sarnath Builders 50,000 2007-08 28-May-07 Ltd. 12.2 He also drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhoruka Engineering Inds. Ltd. vs DCIT 356 ITR 25 and submitted that the ratio and principle laid down in this judgement is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also. He submitted that here in this case what has been transferred by the assessee is the shares held in the subsidiary and not the land owned by the subsidiaries and the said shares were held as investment, not with the…

M/S. UNITECH LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 6585/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary CIT-D.R
Section 144CSection 36(1)(iii)

…truction Pvt. Ltd. 5. Greenline 50,000 2005-06 10-Feb-06 Builders Ltd. 6. Sarnath Builders 50,000 2007-08 28-May-07 Ltd. 12.2 He also drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhoruka Engineering Inds. Ltd. vs DCIT 356 ITR 25 and submitted that the ratio and principle laid down in this judgement is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also. He submitted that here in this case what has been transferred by the assessee is the shares held in the subsidiary and not the land owned by the subsidiaries and the said shares were held as investment, not with the…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

ITA 761/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…upplied) ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 90 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT 4.3 It is to be noted that the dispute under consideration is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhoruka Engineering Industries. Ltd. 356 ITR 25 (Kar.), wherein, it was held that: “19. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Vodafone, it is held that "tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law". "Colourable devices cannot be a part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honourable to avoid payment of tax by resor…

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

ITA 464/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…upplied) ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 90 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT 4.3 It is to be noted that the dispute under consideration is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhoruka Engineering Industries. Ltd. 356 ITR 25 (Kar.), wherein, it was held that: “19. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Vodafone, it is held that "tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law". "Colourable devices cannot be a part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honourable to avoid payment of tax by resor…

ADITYA JYOT EYE HOSPITAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(1)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 5325/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5325/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Aditya Jyot Eye Hospital बिधम/ Ito 6(1)-1 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 153, Major Parameshwaran Mumbai-400020. Road Wadala (W) Mumbai-400031. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadca2900R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Anil Sathe (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 13.08.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Clt (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Conclusion Of The Assessing Officer That The Flat Purchased For Providing

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

…not against the law and facts, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable in view of the law settled in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC), Madras High Court in M.V. Vallipan Vs. CIT 170 ITR 238 & Bhoruka Engg. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 356 ITR 25. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. The factual position is not in dispute. The assessee purchased the flat bearing flat no.602, in the building namely Ornate Galaxy, located at L.T. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai. No doubt, the assessee Dr. Natarajan i…

MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-25, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2509/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhanmilestone Real Estate Fund 402–A, Hallmark Business Plaza Sant Dhyaneshwar Marg ……………. Appellant Bandra, Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaati5880L V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–25(3), Mumbai Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel A/W Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Anand Mohan

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 10Section 115USection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Milestone Real Estate Fund 402–A, Hallmark Business Plaza Sant Dhyaneshwar Marg ……………. Appellant Bandra, Mumbai 400 051 PAN – AAATI5880L v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–25(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel a/w Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue by : Shri Anand Mohan Date of Hearing – 16.05.2018 Date of Order – 10/08/2018 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. By filing this appeal assessee has called into question the validity of the o…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SATYANARAYANA VIVEK KUMAR (HUF)

ITA/42/2016HC Karnataka24 Oct 2017

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY (AG.CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Section 260

…OWING: JUDGMENT Ag.CJ (Oral): Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellants fairly submits that the question raised in this appeal is answered against the appellants by this Court in Bhoruka Engg. Inds. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT ([2013] 356 ITR 25 (Karn)). The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Sd/- ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE hkh.…

FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

ITA 416/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzzaffar Hussain, CIT, LTU (D.R)
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(d)Section 77A

…not be treated as dividend in view of the provisions of Section 2(22)(iv) of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bhoruka Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 356 ITR 25 (Kar) and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has held that a tax planning even with the motive for such a transaction is to avoid tax does not invalidate it unless a particular enactment so provides. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assesse…

UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3148/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3148/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम/ Utv Software The Acit 11(1), Communications Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 1St Floor, Bldg No. 14, Mumbai-400 020 Solitaire Corporate Park, Gutru Hargovindji Marg, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu 4122G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Farokh V. Irani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :01.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Mumbai Dated 21.2.2013 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Two Substantive Grounds Of Appeal. At The Very Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Stated That Under The Instructions From His Client (Assessee), He Is Not Pressing Ground No. 2, The Same Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Farokh V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar
Section 115JSection 2Section 48Section 50B

…of his submission, the Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings Vs Union of India And Another 341 ITR 01 and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhoruka Engineering Indus. Ltd. 356 ITR 25. 6.1. The Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the sale and subscription agreement between the Walt Disney Company (South East Asia) Pte Ltd (Purchaser) and Zarina Mehta, Ronnie Screwvala, Unilazer Exports & Management Consultants Ltd, UTV Software Communications Ltd (assessee) – collectively known as the ‘Sellers’ and United Home Entertainment Ltd.…

Karnataka in Bhoruka Engineering India Ltd. v. DCIT (356 ITR 25) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax