C. BHARAT KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
ITA 123/BANG/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2001-02
Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao
For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nambirajan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 43(5)
…. CIT Vs Puttaiah Seshaiah& Co. (1984) 146 ITR 168 (AP) b. CIT Vs Shantilal Pvt.Ltd (1983) 144 ITR 57(SC) c. Davenport & Co.Pvt.Ltd Vs CIT (1975) 100 ITR 715 (SC) d. Jute Investment Co.Ltd. Vs CIT (1980) 121 ITR 56 (SC) e.Raghunath Prasad Poddar Vs CIT (1973) 90 ITR 140(SC) f. Sind National Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT (1980) 121 ITR 742(Bom.) and its earlier decisions in the case of CIT Vs Puttaiah Seshaiah & Co. (1984) 146 ITR 168 (AP) 146 ITR 168 held as follows; “After considering the definition of ‘speculative transaction’ contained in clause(5) of section 43, it was observed that the law and spoken of a s…