Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT

63 ITR 651Supreme Court of India1967#4372 most cited

What is Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT authority for?

The date of acquisition of shares, particularly in the context of rights issues, is the date the company's offer to subscribe to shares is made, not the date of allotment, physical issuance, or payment.

27

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

Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v CIT · 63 ITR 651 · SC · 1967 · date of acquisition · rights issue · shares · allotment date · payment date · subscription offer

Sections most often in play

Section 249
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT

The Good Shepherd Education Society, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-2, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 128/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Gokul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 249

…v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) d. CIT v. Chamanlal Mangaldas& Co. [1960] 39 ITR 8 (SC) e. CIT v Harivallabhadas Kalidas & Co. [1960] 39 ITR 1 (SC) f. CIT v Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 409 (SC) Page 3 of 4 g. Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC) h. CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC) 4. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that assessee should have filed appeal within the stipulated time. The return was processed on 26.09.2019. Later hard copy was sent to the assessee. Assessee should have checked its email. The intimatio…

Sills Karingattil Jose, Nedumkandom vs. ITO Ward 2, Thodupuzha

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Sils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer NP 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [PAN: AFOPJ8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CA Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delh…

Shri. Sriram Rupanagunta, Bangalore vs. Asistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 31/BANG/2023[2015-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2023AY 2015-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sriram Rupanagunta, The Assistant 34 Purva Park Ridge, Commissioner Of Goshala Road, Income Tax, Garudachar Palya, Circle – 5(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Banglore. Pan: Ahlpr7578N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kodhanda Pani, Ca : Shri Kiran .D, Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2022 Passed By Nfac For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner In Which It Is Done On The Basis Of Presumptions, Assumptions & Surmises & Inferences, Conjecture & Hypothetical, Than On The Basis Of The Facts.

For Appellant: Shri Kodhanda Pani, CA
Section 111ASection 143Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 234Section 47Section 54E

…asset in any manner whatsoever. The Ld.AR relied on Explanation 2 to section 2(47) of the act in support of his contention. 4.6 The Ld.AR heavily relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs. CIT reported in (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that, in the case of acquiring a share, the date of acquisition is the day on which offer was made by the Company to subscribe to the shares in the case of rights issued but not the date of the allotment or the date of physical issue of shares or date on which the payment was made. 4.7 He thus submitted that, ba…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1643/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shibaji Simlai, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…176/148 ITD 260following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miss. Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT [1967] I.T.A Nos. 1541 & 1643/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 17 Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah 63 ITR 651 (SC) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of H. Holck Larsen v. CIT [1972] 85 ITR 285 (Bom) held that as long as there is no disproportional allotment of shares, there was no scope for any property being received by the tax payer as there was only an apportionment of the value of the existing shareholder over a larger number of shares, and he…

Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1541/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shibaji Simlai, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…176/148 ITD 260following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miss. Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT [1967] I.T.A Nos. 1541 & 1643/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 17 Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah 63 ITR 651 (SC) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of H. Holck Larsen v. CIT [1972] 85 ITR 285 (Bom) held that as long as there is no disproportional allotment of shares, there was no scope for any property being received by the tax payer as there was only an apportionment of the value of the existing shareholder over a larger number of shares, and he…

JCIT, Special Range-10, New Delhi vs. Bhanu Chopra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 167/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryjt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sh. Bhanu Chopra, Tax,Special Range-10, M-140, Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Agwpc5625R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriIshtiyaqueAdhmed, Ld. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Sharma, Ld. Adv
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(xv)Section 250(6)Section 49(4)Section 55Section 55(2)(a)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…books. The excess (over face value), or Rs. 1,400/-, gets apportioned over two shares as against one earlier, which is aIready the shareholders‟ property. This is also the basis and the premise of the decisions in ie case of DhunDadabhoyKapadia vs. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC) and H. Hoick Larsen vs. IT [1972] 85 ITR 285 (Bom), relied upon and referred to by the parties before us. As long as, therefore, there is no disproportionate allotment, i.e. shares are allotted pro-rata to the shareholders, based on their existing holdings, there is no scope for any property being received by them on the said allotment of sha…

JCIT, Special Range-10, New Delhi vs. Arvind Sehgal, New Delhi

ITA 168/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryjt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sh Arvind Sehgal, Tax,Special Range-10, E-70, First Floor, New Delhi Kalkaji, Delhi Pan: Aohps1311R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manu Chourasia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manu K. Giri, Ld. And Ms. Sonia Dodeja, Ld. Advs
Section 2(24)(xv)Section 250(6)Section 55Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…oks. The excess (over face value), or Rs. 1,400/-, gets apportioned over two shares as against one earlier, which is already the shareholders‟ property. This is also the basis and the premise of the decisions in ie case of Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC) and H. Hoick Larsen vs. IT [1972] 85 ITR 285 (Bom), relied upon and referred to by the parties before us. As long as, therefore, there is no disproportionate allotment, i.e. shares are allotted pro-rata to the shareholders, based on their existing holdings, there is no scope for any property being received by them on the said allotment of sha…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ished as well the amounts paid by the ECL to the Public shareholders and cost of shares of the ECL Company allotted to outside shareholders as part of the scheme. 16.6 This ratio was applied by the Apex. Court in the case of Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v C1T (63 ITR 651)(SC). The decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v Mahindra &Co Ltd (326 ITR 465) also supports the view of the assessee. Applying the ratio of the Court in these decisions, a concomitant of the assets acquired from ISL is the extinguishment of the equity shares, preference shares and Debentures in ISL, amounts paid by the ECL to…

Chittharanjan A Dasannacharya vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/153/2014HC Karnataka23 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 260Section 260ASection 54F

…not open for the revenue to challenge its correctness in case of other assesses. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CIT VS. L.W.RUSSEL', (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC) AT PAGE 5, 'DHUN DADABHOY KAPADIA VS. CIT', (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC), 'MANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. VS. CIT', (1978) 113 ITR 655 (SC), 'BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS. CIT', (2004) 135 TAXMAN 586 (SC). 10 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue while inviting the attention of this court to clause 2(f) of the stock plan submitted that even an consultant who performs services for the c…

DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Smt. Veena Goayal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 75/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish Tantiwala (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…s. 100/-) as inadequate consideration u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act and taxed Rs. 27 lacs as additional income in the hands of the assessee. The Mumbai ITAT following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H. Holck Larsen vs. CIT (1972) 85 ITR 285 (Bom) held that as long as there is no disproportional allotment of shares, there was no scope for any property being received by the tax payer as there was only an apportionment of the value of the existing shareholder over a larger number of shares, no ad…

Hirabai Bhausaheb Katore, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA 2844/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2844/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hirabai Bhausaheb Katore, Nimgaon Korhale, Taluka- Rahata, Ahmednagar-423 109. Pan : Csgpk1457F .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri B. B. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

…essee and other defendants have arrived to compromise and withdrawal of purses on terms of payment of Rs. 36,00,000/-. 4 A.Y.2013-14 2.4 The Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) Miss Daun Dadabhoy Kapadia Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 651(SC) (b) CIT Vs. Daksha Ramanlal (1992) 197 ITR 123 ( Guj.) (c) R.M Arunachalam Vs. CIT, 227 ITR 222(SC) (d) CIT Vs. Manjula J. Shah 355 ITR 474 ( Bom) 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the orders of the Authorities below. 4. Feeing aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee filed appeal before us. We find…

Smt. Amita Narang, Delhi vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 385/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 385/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48

…, i.e., as understood commercially or which an ordinary man of business will resort to when making computation for his purposes, was reiterated, again in the context of computation of capital gain/loss, by the Apex Court in Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC). What, therefore, is to be seen, as clarified in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC), is whether the cost incurred is necessary to bring the relevant asset into existence and to put it in working condition. The said decision, though rendered in the context of cost for the purpose of claim of depreciation, the principle invol…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…o. 29 ITR 987 (Bom) 105-110 19 CIT Vs. Harivallabhadas Kalidas & Co. 39 ITR 1 (SC) 111-115 28 CIT Vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd 404 ITR 409 (SC) 172-184 29 CIT Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 (SC) 185-196 30 Miss Dhun Dadbhoy Kapadia Vs. CIT 63 ITR 651 (SC) 197-200 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 97/137 Sl.No CASE LAWS ON REAL INCOME Page No. 39. CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd 236 ITR 315 (SC) 24…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…o. 29 ITR 987 (Bom) 105-110 19 CIT Vs. Harivallabhadas Kalidas & Co. 39 ITR 1 (SC) 111-115 28 CIT Vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd 404 ITR 409 (SC) 172-184 29 CIT Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 (SC) 185-196 30 Miss Dhun Dadbhoy Kapadia Vs. CIT 63 ITR 651 (SC) 197-200 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 97/137 Sl.No CASE LAWS ON REAL INCOME Page No. 39. CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd 236 ITR 315 (SC) 24…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 4370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…l. It is urged that the capital gains chargeable under section 45 are real capital gains computed on the ordinary principles of commercial accounting and that the capital gains must be embedded in the capital asset. In Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC), the appellant held by way of investment some ordinary shares in a limited company. An offer was made by the company to her by which she was entitled to apply for an equal number of new ordinary shares at a premium with an option of either taking the shares or renouncing them in favour of others. The appellant renounced her rights to all the…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3237/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…l. It is urged that the capital gains chargeable under section 45 are real capital gains computed on the ordinary principles of commercial accounting and that the capital gains must be embedded in the capital asset. In Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC), the appellant held by way of investment some ordinary shares in a limited company. An offer was made by the company to her by which she was entitled to apply for an equal number of new ordinary shares at a premium with an option of either taking the shares or renouncing them in favour of others. The appellant renounced her rights to all the…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhakar M. Shetty, Mumbai

ITA 2906/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…l. It is urged that the capital gains chargeable under section 45 are real capital gains computed on the ordinary principles of commercial accounting and that the capital gains must be embedded in the capital asset. In Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC), the appellant held by way of investment some ordinary shares in a limited company. An offer was made by the company to her by which she was entitled to apply for an equal number of new ordinary shares at a premium with an option of either taking the shares or renouncing them in favour of others. The appellant renounced her rights to all the…

ACIT - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Progressive Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5317/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-4(2)(1), M/S Progressive Share Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacp6712H

Section 14ASection 43(5)Section 73

…esult of all activities/transactions in an integrated business such as arbitrage business, which has to be looked at, to determine the character and the head of income, reliance is placed on the following decisions : • Ms. Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC). 21 M/s Progressive Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd. • CIT v. U. P. State Industrial Development Corporation [1997] 225 ITR 703 (SC). • CIT v. Nirmal Kumar and Co. [1986] 161 ITR 413 (Cal). • Dr. Rajesh M. Parikh v. ITO [2006] 8 SOT 61 (Mumbai). • Chirag D. Tanna v. Asst. CIT (I. T. A. Nos. 4227 and 5027/ Mum/2010, dated March 14, 2012). In view…

ACIT, Cir.-1(2), Pune vs. Global Infrastructure & Technologies Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 351/PUN/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed to appreciate the decision of his predecessor, taken on merits, for A.Y. 1995-96. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in relying on the following decision which are factually distinguishable, i) Dhun Kapadia 63 ITR 651(SC) ii) State Bank of Travancore 158 ITR 102(SC) iii) Birla Gawlior Pvt. Ltd. 89 ITR 266 (SC) iv) Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC) All these decisions were distinguishable by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 95-96 and not applicable to the facts of case of the assessee. He has erred in not appreciating the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the…

M/S. Global Infrastructure & Technologies Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, WD.-3(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 722/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed to appreciate the decision of his predecessor, taken on merits, for A.Y. 1995-96. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in relying on the following decision which are factually distinguishable, i) Dhun Kapadia 63 ITR 651(SC) ii) State Bank of Travancore 158 ITR 102(SC) iii) Birla Gawlior Pvt. Ltd. 89 ITR 266 (SC) iv) Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC) All these decisions were distinguishable by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 95-96 and not applicable to the facts of case of the assessee. He has erred in not appreciating the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the…