Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT

77 ITR 253Supreme Court of India1970#2358 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.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 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 131Section 133(6)Section 44ADSection 45Section 45(1)Section 46ASection 48
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 45(1)transfer of capital assetcolourable devicesection 45short term capital gainsshort term capital gainlong term capital gainsadmission of additional evidencepenny stocksection 10(38)section 44addisallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Arvind Rajkishore Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, assessment framed on the basis of such invalid and in appropriate reasons is also quashed”

ITA 7137/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…necessary directions:-  Hon. Madras High Court in CIT Vs. S.P. Balasubramaniam in 250 ITR 0127.  The Hon. Andra Pradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Raja Dhanraj Girji in 079 ITR 0563.  The Supreme Court of India in Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh Vs. CIT in 77 ITR 253.  Madras High Court in Amirtham Ammal Vs. CIT 74 ITR 739.  The Hon. Bombay High Court in Rajputana Textile (Agencies) Ltd, Vs. CIT, 24 ITR 46.Hon. Allahabad High Court in ITO Vs. Rani Ratnesh Kumarib, 123 ITR 343. It is to be mentioned here that mere entries in the books of account owing some shares as “stock-in-trade” and some shares as “invest…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eveready Industries India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 94/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: MD.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 41(1)Section 43B

…05 ITR 633 (SC) wherein it was held that where the intention of the resale was there almost from the beginning, and was the dominant intention for the purchase, transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade. (v) Raja Bahadur Kamkhaya Narain Singh Vs. CIT 77 ITR 253 (SC) wherein it was held that where a transaction is not mere realization of ITA No.94/Kol/2012-M/s.Eveready Inds.India Ltd.-A.Y.2005-06 31 investments but act of making profit then the same is a trading venture. According to the AO, the Assessee by handing over possession to a developer was to get constructed area instead of open land. The Asses…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2863/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri MP Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Chandra Sharma, CIT- DR
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…n 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); iii) 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…

Shanti Banerjee vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances with

ITA - 299 / 2003HC Delhi17 Nov 2015
Section 45Section 54

…Page 4 of 5 12.The expression ‘adventure in the nature of trade’ was again considered by the Supreme Court in Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v CIT [1970] 77 ITR 253. It was observed that if a transaction was in the ordinary line of the assessee’s business, there would be no difficulty in concluding that it was a trading transaction. But where it was not, the facts had to be carefully assessed to determine if it was in the nature of trade. 13. On more or less similar facts, this Court held in favour of t…

SHANTI BANERJEE (deceased) by LRs vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances with

ITA/299/2003HC Delhi17 Nov 2015
Section 45Section 54

…Page 4 of 5 12.The expression ‘adventure in the nature of trade’ was again considered by the Supreme Court in Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v CIT [1970] 77 ITR 253. It was observed that if a transaction was in the ordinary line of the assessee’s business, there would be no difficulty in concluding that it was a trading transaction. But where it was not, the facts had to be carefully assessed to determine if it was in the nature of trade. 13. On more or less similar facts, this Court held in favour of t…

Sri Damodarlal Badruka vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITTA/299/2003HC Telangana17 Mar 2015

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

Sanjeev Mittal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above

ITA/520/2014HC Delhi02 Feb 2015

…income but capital gains. In arriving at this decision, the CIT(Appeals) was guided by several binding decisions, such as CIT V. Associated Industrial Development Company (P) Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 586 (SC), Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh V. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT V. Holck Larsen (1987) 160 ITR 67 (SC) etc. In fact the order of the CIT (Appeals) with respect to analysis of the facts covers a considerable part of the order. 12. Likewise the analysis of case law and the inference is drawn on the basis of its application run into over 30 pages. The contentions noted by the CIT (Appeals) ar…

Radials International vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/485/2012HC Delhi25 Apr 2014

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management 2014:Dhc:2173-Db

Section 271(1)(c)Section 88E

…. However, the fact that no inference of an intention to invest can be made from the agreement does not translate to the intention to trade in shares for profit either. As was noted in Raja Bahadur KamakhyaNarain Singh v. CIT-Bihar, (1969)3SCC791 = (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) : “The surplus realised on the sale of shares, for instance, would be capital if the assessee is an ordinary investor realising his holding; but it would be revenue, if he deals with them as an adventure in the nature of trade. The fact that the original purchase was made with the intention to 2014:DHC:2173-DB ITA No.485/2012 Page…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. M/s. Kakinada Coop. Town Bank LTd., Kakinada

ITTA/485/2012HC Telangana15 Nov 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO