Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani v. ACIT

367 ITR 261High Court2014#5360 most cited

What is Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani v. ACIT authority for?

Capital gains arising from the transfer of equity shares and equity-oriented mutual funds are exempt if the shares are long-term capital assets, transferred on the stock exchange, and the sale transaction is subject to levy. The case also relates to the application of beneficial provisions and the rejection of claims under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA).

22

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

Also referred to as

Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani · 367 ITR 261 · Section 10(38) · capital gains exemption · equity shares · mutual funds · long-term capital asset · stock exchange · DTAA · beneficial provision

Sections most often in play

Section 70Section 74Section 10(38)Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(39A)Section 45

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 4(1)section 74section 71section 10(33)section 47section 70transfer of capital assetsection 2(14)section 48section 10(38)section 45

Judgments citing Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani v. ACIT

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…st be adopted was already held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd reported in 88 ITR 192 (SC). It was argued by the Learned AR that the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikha bhai Virani reported in 367 ITR 261 (Guj) had indeed taken a contrary view and the said decision is per incuriam and hence not a binding precedent inasmuch as the same has not considered the fundamental law laid down in CIT vs Karamchand Premchand Ltd of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 40 ITR 106 (SC) and decision of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court referred supra. f) Capital gains arising on…

TVF FUND LTD., MAURITIUS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4632/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 153Section 74Section 90(2)

…eliance on following decisions in support of the claim: 1. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hariprasad Co.(P.) Limited reported in 199 ITR 118 2. Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Kishore Bhai Bhikha Bhai Virani reported in (2014) 367 ITR 261 3. Flagship Indian Investment Co (Mauritius) Ltd (2010) 38 SOT 426 (Mum). 4. J.P.Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Limited [ITA No.2382/Mum/2021] 5. Swiss Finance Corporation (Mauritius), Ltd reported in (2023) 146 Taxmann.com203. 2.4 The Ld. AO after considering the submissions of the assessee rejected the claim availed under the DTAA in…

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1213/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…450 ITA No. 1212 & 1213/Del/2017 Mr. Tarun Sawhney ITR 618 (Ker) which had rendered the decision on the very same issue in favour of the revenue. We find that the decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani reported in 367 ITR 261 (Guj) together with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harprasad & Co. reported in 99 ITR 118 (SC) were relied upon . We have already dealt with the distinctive feature of the facts prevailing in Harprasad & Co supra. Hence reliance placed on the said decision would not advance the case of the revenue. It is pertinent to note th…

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1212/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…450 ITA No. 1212 & 1213/Del/2017 Mr. Tarun Sawhney ITR 618 (Ker) which had rendered the decision on the very same issue in favour of the revenue. We find that the decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani reported in 367 ITR 261 (Guj) together with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harprasad & Co. reported in 99 ITR 118 (SC) were relied upon . We have already dealt with the distinctive feature of the facts prevailing in Harprasad & Co supra. Hence reliance placed on the said decision would not advance the case of the revenue. It is pertinent to note th…

RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 2(14)Section 45Section 45(1)Section 47

…he appeal relied on the series of decision namely Harprasad& Co. Pvt. Ltd. [99 ITR 118], CIT vs. J. H Gotla [156 ITR 323], CIT vs. Coin health Food Pvt. Ltd. [304 ITR 308] , decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani vs. ACIT [367 ITR 261], decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Nikhil Sawhney vs. ACIT [119 taxmann.com 372], decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DDIT (International Taxation) vs. Asia Pacific Performance SICAV [2015] 55 taxmann.com 333. Aggrieved assessee 3 I.T.A. No.46/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rita Gupta filed an appeal before the…

ANAND VEENA TWISTERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2601/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115JSection 132Section 14Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos.2599 to 2601/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16) Anand Veena Twisters Pvt. Dy. Commissioner of Ltd. Income tax, Office No.802, Floor-8, Plot- Central Circle-7(1), 213, Room No.653, Raheja Chambers, Vs. 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Nariman Point 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACA4272F Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR Revenue by : Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.11.2023 Date of pronouncement :…

ANAND VEENA TWISTERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2600/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115JSection 132Section 14Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos.2599 to 2601/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16) Anand Veena Twisters Pvt. Dy. Commissioner of Ltd. Income tax, Office No.802, Floor-8, Plot- Central Circle-7(1), 213, Room No.653, Raheja Chambers, Vs. 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Nariman Point 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACA4272F Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR Revenue by : Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.11.2023 Date of pronouncement :…

ANAND VEENA TWISTERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2599/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115JSection 132Section 14Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos.2599 to 2601/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16) Anand Veena Twisters Pvt. Dy. Commissioner of Ltd. Income tax, Office No.802, Floor-8, Plot- Central Circle-7(1), 213, Room No.653, Raheja Chambers, Vs. 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Nariman Point 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACA4272F Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR Revenue by : Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.11.2023 Date of pronouncement :…

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 380/PUN/2020[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e of shares of Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a transaction on winch securities transaction tax (‘STT’) was paid. In doing so, the AO has relied on the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani vs. ACIT (2014) (367 ITR 261), and has disregarded an earlier judgement of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club vs. CIT (1983) (144 ITR 709), which was also not considered by the Gujarat High Court. The AO has also chosen to disregard series of decisions of the Tribunal ITA No.380/PUN/2020 for A.Y. 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd.,…

MRS. SHIKHA SANJAYA SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1546/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv., & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 70

…s being shares. Following the above arguments, the Assessing Officer was justified to set off short-term capital loss on long-term capital gain. Similar view has been held by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of KishorbhaiBhikhabhai Virani Vs. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 261. In view of the above, the computation made by Assessing Officer is upheld.” 5. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal and now before us. 6. Before us, the Ld. A/R submitted that the Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,62,06,472/- was exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act and therefore did not form part of Total…

DY CIT - CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed for A

ITA 634/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2011-12
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 153ASection 48

…ch STT was paid, which do not form part of total income as envisaged in the provisions of section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani Vs ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 261 (Gujarat)? 3. Brief facts relating to the above grounds of appeal are that search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act (for short “Act”) were initiated on ABIL Group on 21.07.2017 and various residences of the partners/directors of the group situated at Mumbai and Pune were covered by search action. The assessee Shri Avinash N. Bhos…

THE SECUNDERBAD CLUB ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD -10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.Jeevanlal, DR
Section 143(3)

…he be obliged to show those capital gains ill his return? Could the loss of the year 1953-54 be absorbed or set off against such capital gains of the subsequent years? The answer is emphatically in the negative.” Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment in (2015) 367 ITR 261 (Guj) Kishorebhai Bikabhai Virani Vs. ACIT also holds that a loss under an exempt source is not to be carried forward for set off against subsequent year’s income. 10. So far as the assessee's argument that the foregoing judicial precedents (supra) have duly held that it ought to adopt commercial principles in computation of income, there would b…

SECUNDERABAD CLUB,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 153/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Secunderabad Club, Hyderabad. Pan Aaaat2534E …..Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2013-14 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.16.02.2018 Passed In Case No.0051/2016-17/B2/Cit(A)-6 In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.)
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(vii)Section 71

…he be obliged to show those capital gains ill his return? Could the loss of the year 1953-54 be absorbed or set off against such capital gains of the subsequent years? The answer is emphatically in the negative.” Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment in (2015) 367 ITR 261 (Guj) Kishorebhai Bikabhai Virani Vs. ACIT also holds that a loss under an exempt source is not to be carried forward for set off against subsequent year’s income. 10. So far as the assessee's argument that the foregoing judicial precedents (supra) have duly held that it ought to adopt commercial principles in computation of income, there would b…

M/S. APPOLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITA/216/2013HC Kerala03 Aug 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 70(3)

…der the head ‘capital gains’. The assessee under this head has two sources of income; firstly, from the sale of equity shares and units in mutual funds which are long term 1 (1982) 144 ITR 100 (Ker.) 2 (1960) 40 ITR 106 (SC) 3 (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC) 4 (2014) 367 ITR 261 (Guj.) I.T.A. No.216/2013 -10- capital assets and the sale was subjected to STT; secondly, sale of land held for more than three years and is in the nature of long term capital gain. The sources now clubbed together are distinct and separate. The first source, namely income from the sale of shares/units in mutual funds is a non-taxable sour…

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143

…in Kishorebhai [earlier decisions not considered – per-incuriam/ sub-silentio] . It may also be pertinent to note that the Tribunal in Raptakos (supra) also considered the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani: [2015] 367 ITR 261 (Guj.) [Placed at pages 165-167 of Case Laws PB-2] wherein the Court held that since income arising from transfer of equity shares/ units is exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, loss on sale of shares is not available for set off. It is respectfully submitted that the decision in Kisorebhai (supra) cannot be applied in preference to the other…

NETESOFT INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 5359/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 70

…td. V/s DCIT (58 Taxmann.com 115) wherein coordinate bench, after 10 Netesoft India Ltd. Assessment Year-2013-14 considering various judicial pronouncements including contrary decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani V/s ACIT (367 ITR 261) and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. CIT (1983 144 ITR 709/12 Taxman 133), took a view favorable to the assessee by observing as under:- 5. Before us the learned senior counsel, Shri Soli Dastur, submitted that what is contemplated in section 10(38) is exemption of positive income and losses will not come wi…

ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 318/NAG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

…able claim. The assessee brought our attention to the contents of para 10 of the said order in this regard. From the said para, we find that relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kishorebhai Virani Vs. ACIT reported in (2014) 367 ITR 261 (Guj) and various decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. Mithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Del), Addl.CIT Vs. K.S. Gupta (1979) 119 ITR 372 (A.P.), S.Balanalias Shanmuqam Vs. DCIT (2009) 120 ITD 469 (Pune) and discussing all these judgments, Pune Bench of Tribunal held as under:- “10……. We further find that Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of R…

ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 317/NAG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

…able claim. The assessee brought our attention to the contents of para 10 of the said order in this regard. From the said para, we find that relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kishorebhai Virani Vs. ACIT reported in (2014) 367 ITR 261 (Guj) and various decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. Mithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Del), Addl.CIT Vs. K.S. Gupta (1979) 119 ITR 372 (A.P.), S.Balanalias Shanmuqam Vs. DCIT (2009) 120 ITD 469 (Pune) and discussing all these judgments, Pune Bench of Tribunal held as under:- “10……. We further find that Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of R…

SHRI. ABDULLABHAI HASANALI,,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,-II, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 621/NAG/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

…able claim. The assessee brought our attention to the contents of para 10 of the said order in this regard. From the said para, we find that relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kishorebhai Virani Vs. ACIT reported in (2014) 367 ITR 261 (Guj) and various decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. Mithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Del), Addl.CIT Vs. K.S. Gupta (1979) 119 ITR 372 (A.P.), S.Balanalias Shanmuqam Vs. DCIT (2009) 120 ITD 469 (Pune) and discussing all these judgments, Pune Bench of Tribunal held as under:- “10……. We further find that Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of R…

RARE INVESTMENTS,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) - 28 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3409/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Rare Investments Vs. The Commissioner Of 151, Nariman Point Income Tax (28), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 021 R.No.114, Aaykar Bhavan Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aahfr8059H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 70

…e of shares should be allowed to be set off against Long term capital gain on sale of land. In his fairness, he also pointed out before us that there is a decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani vs. Asst. CIT (2014) 367 ITR 261 (Guj), which has decided this issue against the assessee. However, he submitted that in the said decision, the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has not been referred at all. Therefore, this decision does not have precedence value as compared to the Calcutta High Court decision, which is based on Supreme Court decision on this point. He als…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2