Mohammed & Co. v. CIT

107 ITR 637High Court1977#14670 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

period of holdingsection 2(14)section 45short term capital gainlong term capital gaingenuineness of the transactionprevious yeartransfercompanysection 143(3)businessperson

Judgments citing Mohammed & Co. v. CIT

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…sential characteristic of stock-in-trade is that it must be a commodity in which there is dealing as distinguished from a commodity with which the business is carried on, viz., from the exploitation of which income is derived [refer H. Mohammed & Co. vs. CIT 107 ITR 637 (Guj.)]. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that for the purposes of assessability of profit derived from the sale of shares/ mutual funds, it is predominantly the intention of the assessee which is relevant. The issue whether shares/ securities/ units are held by an assessee as `investment’ or as `stock in trade’ and whether profit derived…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…sential characteristic of stock-in-trade is that it must be a commodity in which there is dealing as distinguished from a commodity with which the business is carried on, viz., from the exploitation of which income is derived [refer H. Mohammed & Co. vs. CIT 107 ITR 637 (Guj.)]. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that for the purposes of assessability of profit derived from the sale of shares/ mutual funds, it is predominantly the intention of the assessee which is relevant. The issue whether shares/ securities/ units are held by an assessee as `investment’ or as `stock in trade’ and whether profit derived…

Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B.Koli, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 45(3)Section 54F

…through which he carries on his business, the same cannot be his "stock-in-trade" and hence, by default, it would constitute his "capital asset". Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of H Mohmed & Co v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 637(Guj). 15. We note that Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Neel Siddhi Developers in ITA No 30/Mum/2020 order dated 28.10.2022, held as follows: “Business Income Vs. Capital Gain: 7. The first ground of the Revenue is that the sale of land at Nagpur by the Assessee is a transaction in the nature of adventure in trade and hence, li…

ACIT 28 (2), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S Neel Siddhi Developers, Navi Mumbai

ITA 30/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)

…means' through which he carries on his business, the same cannot be his "stock-in-trade" and hence, by default, it would constitute his "capital asset" Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of H Mohmed & Co v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 637(Guj) wherein it has been held that what an assessee deals in is his "stock-in-trade" and what he deals with is "capital asset". f. The contention of the AO that the land was a business asset and hence, the gain on its sale is taxable under the head "Business income" is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Expr…

Balkrishna P. Wadhwan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

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

ITA 5414/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain Balkrishna P. Wadhwan, Bunglow No.4, Vasant Vihar Complex, Dr.C.G.Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400074 Pan:Aaapw1802G ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit,Cen.Cir.36, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020. .... Respondent

For Appellant: S/Shri B.V.Jhaveri/A.N.ShahFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…ve for the assessee pointed out that the business asset so held by a concern cannot be straightway treated as ‘stock-in-trade’ and for that matter referred to the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of H.Mohammed & Co. vs. CIT, 107 ITR 637 (Guj). It was asserted that there is nothing to suggest that the land was a ‘stock-in-trade’ in the hands of the erstwhile partnership firm and so far as the assessee is concerned, he has not undertaken any business activity upon such land and, therefore, it was to be taken a ‘capital asset’ in the hands of the assessee, thereby requiring the ass…

Mahalaxmi Innovative Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light our aforesaid observations

ITA 4856/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4856/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mahalaxmi Innovative Services Ltd. Dcit Cir 2(2) बिधम/ 1004, 10Th Floor, Maker Chambers-V, Mumbai Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai, स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm9810C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…nstruction quoted below ought to have been considered by him. Attention was invited to instruction No. 1827 dated 31.8.1989. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: i) G. Venkata Swami Naidu & co. Vs. CIT 35 ITR 594 (SC) ii) H. Mohammad & Co. Vs. CIT 107 ITR 637 (Guj.) iii) Sarder Indra Singh & sons Ltd. Vs. CIT 24 ITR 415 (SC) iv) SBH. Vs.CIT 151 ITR 703 iv) Karam Chand Thapar and brothers (P) Ltd Vs. CIT 83 ITR 899 (SC) P a g e | 10 j) That without prejudice, it was submitted that under the present scheme of the Act providing for concessional tax treatment to Short Term capital Gains under Section 11…