Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani v. ACIT

367 ITR 261High Court2014#5269 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 366,339 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

DCIT 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2005-06 is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 726/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 726/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) The Dcit 15(3)2, Vs. M/S Strides Arcolab Ltd. Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, 206, Devrata, Sector-17 Aaykar Bhavan, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Co No. 128/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) M/S Strides Arcolab Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Strides Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Arcolab Limited), No. 451, 4Th Floor, 201, Devrata, Sector-17 Aaykar Bhavan. Vashi, M.K. Road, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Mumbai - 400020 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia (CIT DR)
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143Section 154

…Act.” 6. Before us, Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the expressed provisions of law and the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani vs. ACIT 367 ITR 261 (Guj). The Ld. DR further submitted that the Hon’ble Court has decided the identical issue against the assessee holding that loss arising on sale of capital assets covered u/s 10 (38) would not be available for set off as the loss would not be includible in computation of assessee’s income. The Ld. DR further submitted that since the assessee’s c…

Vibhadeep Investment & Trading Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 4751/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Vibhadeep Investments & Acit (Osd)-3(3) Trading Limited Room No. 620 Vs. Mafatlal House, Backbay Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Reclamation, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacv1946M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…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…