How many judgments cite Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT?

49 judgments on BharatTax cite Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT (77 ITR 253), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 133(6), Section 44AD, Section 45, Section 45(1).

Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT

77 ITR 253Supreme Court of India1970#2383 most cited

What is Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT authority for?

The Supreme Court clarifies the distinction between income chargeable as capital gains and income taxable as business profits, guiding the assessment of whether a transaction constitutes a transfer of a capital asset or is in the nature of trade.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT · 77 ITR 253 · Section 45 · Section 45(1) · capital gains · business income · nature of trade · transfer of capital asset · colourable device · short term capital gains · long term capital gains

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 44AD Section 45 Section 45(1)Section 46A Section 48

Issues it is cited on

section 45(1)transfer of capital asset colourable device section 45 short term capital gains short term capital gain long term capital gains admission of additional evidence penny stock section 10(38)section 44ad disallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT

AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

ITA 597/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 44A

…n'ble Supreme Court in the following cases for the above proportion. 1. Smt Indramani Bai (70 ITR 67) 2. G. Ventakaswami Naidu & Co. (35 ITR 594) 3. Raja.J.Rameshwar Rao (42 ITR 179) 4. Janaki Ram Bahadur Ram (57 ITR 21) 5. Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh (77 ITR 253) Hence, alternatively Rs.36,50,000/- must be treated as income from business.” 6. Aggrieved against the appellate order the assessee Sri. Piyush M Dobariya is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 595/Ahd/2020: 1. The Ld. CIT(A)-1, Vadodara has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in…

SHRI AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

ITA 596/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 44A

SHRI PIYUSH M DOBARIYA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

ITA 595/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 44A

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Gyan Prakash Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(4), B-189, Yojna Vihar, New Delhi – 2 New Delhi – 92 (Pan: Adupg2697N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

…this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of low. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman.com 529 (Bombay) (CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agrawal), (1957) 31 ITR 294 (Bombay) (Puranmal Radhakishon Versus CIT), (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) (Raja Bahadur Versus CIT) and (2015) 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) (CIT Versus Smt. Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand." In the case of Udit Kalra vs. ITO|2019 (4) TMI 834 - Delhi High Court; ITA 220/2019 & CM No. 10774/2019; Dated March 8, 2019], It…

SHAH SANDEEP ANANTKUMAR HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO-32(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4628/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri R.R.Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4628/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shah Sandeep Anantkumar HUF, 401/402, Aura Biplex Habitat, S.V.Road, …………………Appellant Borivali West, Mumbai-400092. PAN –AALHS5130C v/s ITO-32(3)(4), ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400051. Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Kothari Revenue by : Shri R.R.Makwana, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 29/07/2024 Date of Order – 06/08/2024 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the im…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

…lling interest, in the form of capital appreciation, deriving rental/royalty/dividend income, etc., it will qualify as 'capital asset'. Reference, in this regard, was drawn from the following decisions and CBDT circulars: Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh: 77 ITR 253 (SC) Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd: 100 ITR 706 (SC) Karam Chand Thapar& Bros. (P) Limited V. CIT: 82 ITR 899 (SC) PCIT v. Ramniwas Ramjivan Kasat: 248 taxman 484 (Guj.) PCIT v. Hardik Bharat Patel: ITA No. 390 of 2016 (Bom.) CIT vs Century Plyboard (1) Ltd.: ITA No. 83/2010 (Cal.) Circular No. 4 of 2007, dated 15.6.2007- CBDT. Circular…

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9504/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

…this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman.com 529 (Bombay) (CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agrawal), (1957) 31 ITR 294 (Bombay) (Puranmal Radhakishan Versus CIT), (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) (Raja Bahadur Versus CIT) and (2015) 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) (CIT Versus Smt. Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand." Further The H'ble Chennai Tribunal on a similar penny stock case Of Rajnish Agarwal Vs CIT and others, decided on has upheld the…

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…sale as the primary purpose of the purchase. Further, though not necessary in view of it being a regular activity, even a solitary or an isolated transaction can be regarded as an adventure in the nature of trade (see, interalia, decisions at 35 ITR 594 (SC); 77 ITR 253 (SC); 100 ITR 706 (SC)). 6.3 The next question which emanates from the finding/s by the ld. CIT(A), under challenge before us, is if a land, even if agricultural, can be traded in so as to constitute ‘business’. We see no reason for it to be not so. The only thing that is relevant from the standpoint of the assessee, irrespective of the user to w…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…for which shares/securities are held, source of acquisition/investment, nature of business of the assessee and nature of transactions. Reliance was placed upon the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh 77 ITR 253 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. 100 ITR 706 (SC); and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. vs CIT 82 ITR 899 (SC). 81. To buttress the contention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified in the aforesaid judgement that the nature of asset, whether “stock in trade” or “capital asset” depends upon the intention with which the same was a…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7103/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…d in the books, its shares have been valued on cost price as investment. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Felspar Credit and Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT - 346 ITR 121 (Madras); ii) Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh vs. CIT - 77 ITR 253 (S.C) 13. The Learned AR submitted further that in its books of account, the assessee has valued the shares at cost price as investment and referred page No. 228 of the paper book in support. He submitted further that assessee had sufficient interest income and referred page No. 236 of the paper book in support. He submitted that dividends were al…

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

ITA 250/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. P.N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 250/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Indermeet Bains Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income W/o Sh. D.S. Bains, Tax, Bathinda Bathinda [PAN: ACZPB 9945L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. P.N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 28.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 19.10.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2…

AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 78/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10(38)Section 56

…'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The judgments reported in CIT Vs. Jamnadevi Agrawal [2012] 20 taxmann.com 529 (Bombay HC), PuranmalRadhakishan& Co. Vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 294 (Bombay HC), Raja Bahadur KamakhyaNarain Singh Vs. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT Vs. Smt. Datta Mahendra Shah [2015] 62 taxmann.com 325/235 Taxman 1 (Bombay HC) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand". Further the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimal Chand Jain(supra) held that the manifold increase in price of…

SMT. PARAMADEVI TEKRIWAL, ,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1999/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal, The Income-Tax Officer, D-143, Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar Vs Ward 1(5), Pan : Addpt 3030 F Bhavnagar अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 09.07.2018. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Originally On 16.03.2014. Although The Said Return Was Originally Accepted Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short), The Assessment Was Subsequently Reopened By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Information Received From Investigation Wing Of The Income-Tax Department That The Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1,13,53,982/- Arising From The Sale Of Equity Shares Of Kgn Enterprise Ltd. For A Consideration Of Rs.1,13,87,902/- Claimed As Exempt In The Return Of Income Was Bogus & It Was Actually An Accommodation Entry. The Assessing Officer Accordingly Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. Ito Ay : 2013-14 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman.com 529 (Bombay) (CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agrawal), (1957) 31 ITR 294 (Bombay) (Puranmal Radhakishan Versus CIT), (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) (Raja Bahadur Versus CIT) and (2015) 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) (CIT Versus Smt. Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand. Since no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs." Facts in the pres…

M/S. INDI STOCK PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA- II

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and

ITA/49/2009HC Calcutta30 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…te that the assessee maintains two accounts, one for its investment portfolio and the other for stock-in-trade. From the computation of income as done by the assessing officer in his 5 (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) ITA NO. 49 OF 2009 REPORTABLE Page 8 of 11 order dated December 31, 2007, it is seen that the income from investment earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment year was Rs. 6,…

M/S. GAYAN TRADERS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA/48/2009HC Calcutta30 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…ds on the question whether the excess is an enhancement of the value by realizing the security or a gain in an operation of profit making. Further it was pointed 11 (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) 12 (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) ITA NO. 48 OF 2009 REPORTABLE Page 13 of 19 out that the assessee might invest his capital in shares with the intention to resell these if in future there sale brining in a higher price.…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 116/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. during AY 2009-10, and all the shares were sold during the impugned A.Y. 2010-11 by holding the shares for a period of more than 06 months. 8. The ld. Counsel has relied on the following judgements:- (i) Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh, 77 ITR 253 (SC); (ii) CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bom); (iii) CIT vs. Vinay Mittal, (2012) 208 Taxman 106; (iv) Business Match Services (I) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 43 ITR (T) 15 (Mumbai); (v) PCIT vs. Business Match Services (I) (P) Ltd. (2018) 100 taxmann.com 411 (Bombay); and (vi) PCIT vs. Viksit Engineering Ltd., (2018) 100 taxmann.com 436. 9. From the…

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

ALPA UDAYKUMAR SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Darshan GandhiFor Respondent: 08/06/2022

Section 10(38)Section 131(1)Section 68

…this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman.com 529 (Bombay) (CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agrawal), (1957) 31 ITR 294 (Bombay) (Puranmal Radhakishan Versus CIT), (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) (Raja Bahadur Versus CIT) and (2015) 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) (CIT(A) Versus Smt.Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand. Since no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Facts in the pre…

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 706/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The judgments reported in CIT Vs. Jamnadevi Agrawal [20121 20 taxmann.com 529 (Bombay HO. Puranmal Radhakishan& Co. Vs. Crni9571 31 ITR 294 (Bombay HC). Raja Bahadur KamakhyaNarain Singh Vs. CITH9701 77 ITR 253 ISO and CIT Vs. Smt. Datta Mahendra Shah 120151 62 taxmann.com 325/235 Taxman 1 (Bombay HC) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand". Further the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimal Chand Jain(supra) held that the manifold increase in price of th…

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3