Keshavaji Karsondas v. CIT

207 ITR 737High Court1994#15336 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Keshavaji Karsondas v. CIT

SUPRERIOR FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7501/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde &For Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 43(1)(ii)

…ovided in section 43(1)(ii) of the Act. This treatment is in accordance with the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgment in CT vs. Jaanhavi Investments (P) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 276 (Bom). which is based on the earlier judgment in Keshavji Karsondas vs. CIT [1994] 207 ITR 737 (Bom). In Jannhavi Investments’ case (supra), the facts were as follows. The assessee bought shares of some companies in 1977. On the original holding the assessee received bonus shares in the financial year 1981-82 and additional bonus shares in the financial year 1989-90. All the shares were held as stock-in-trade until 6.11.1987, when the same…

ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 926/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok KotharyFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 80I

…capital asset, subsequently became a capital asset due to the amendment to the A.Y.2006-07 Income- Tax Act. In those cases, the Gujarat High Court in Ranchodbhai Bhaijibhai Paid Vs. CIT 81 ITR 446, followed the Bombay High Court in Keshavji Karsondas vs. CIT 207 ITR 737, had held that an asset cannot be acquired first as a non-capital asset at a different point of time and again as a capital asset at a different point of time. There can be only one acquisition of the asset and that is when the assessee acquires it for the first time, irrespective of its character at that point of time. Therefore what is relevant…

ASHOK APPARELS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CEN. CIR.47, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

ITA 7303/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Respondent: Shri B Pruseth &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Sons (124 ITR 24) (Cal), where it has been stated that even if the stock in trade to be valued at cost at for the purpose of calculation of cost of acquisition of capital asset. Relying on the Another leading case on the point is Keshavaji Karsondas Vs. CIT (207 ITR 737) where it was categorically held that what is relevant is the "cost of acquisition" and not the date on which the asset became a capital asset of the purpose of levy of capital gains tax. The property which was transferred could become the property of the assessee only at one point of time. It would not become the property of the assessee as a no…

ASHOK APPARELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

ITA 3563/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Respondent: Shri B Pruseth &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Sons (124 ITR 24) (Cal), where it has been stated that even if the stock in trade to be valued at cost at for the purpose of calculation of cost of acquisition of capital asset. Relying on the Another leading case on the point is Keshavaji Karsondas Vs. CIT (207 ITR 737) where it was categorically held that what is relevant is the "cost of acquisition" and not the date on which the asset became a capital asset of the purpose of levy of capital gains tax. The property which was transferred could become the property of the assessee only at one point of time. It would not become the property of the assessee as a no…

ASHOK APPARELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

ITA 3562/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Respondent: Shri B Pruseth &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Sons (124 ITR 24) (Cal), where it has been stated that even if the stock in trade to be valued at cost at for the purpose of calculation of cost of acquisition of capital asset. Relying on the Another leading case on the point is Keshavaji Karsondas Vs. CIT (207 ITR 737) where it was categorically held that what is relevant is the "cost of acquisition" and not the date on which the asset became a capital asset of the purpose of levy of capital gains tax. The property which was transferred could become the property of the assessee only at one point of time. It would not become the property of the assessee as a no…

ASHOK APPARELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

ITA 3561/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Respondent: Shri B Pruseth &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Sons (124 ITR 24) (Cal), where it has been stated that even if the stock in trade to be valued at cost at for the purpose of calculation of cost of acquisition of capital asset. Relying on the Another leading case on the point is Keshavaji Karsondas Vs. CIT (207 ITR 737) where it was categorically held that what is relevant is the "cost of acquisition" and not the date on which the asset became a capital asset of the purpose of levy of capital gains tax. The property which was transferred could become the property of the assessee only at one point of time. It would not become the property of the assessee as a no…

Keshavaji Karsondas v. CIT (207 ITR 737) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax