How many judgments cite Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT (73 ITR 652), spanning 2010 to 2025.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 140A, Section 143(1)(a), Section 147, Section 148.

Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT (73 ITR 652)

Q: What is Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT authority for?

Bonus shares received by a dealer in shares constitute a capital asset unless specifically converted into stock-in-trade. The sale of such bonus shares attracts capital gains tax.

ADDL CIT SP RG 22, MUMBAI vs. DSP MERRILL LYNCH LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2198/MUM/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 140ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250Section 80Section 800

…same could be treated as investment. It is held by many courts that sale of bonus shares and right shares are in the nature of capital. Hence sale of right shares and bonus shares would attract only capital gains as held in the case of CIT v Madan Gopal Radhe 73 ITR 652 & CIT v Hindustan Industrial Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 4 TAXMAN 204(Bam). As a dealer of shares, the trader would not be holding on the shares for longer time, if the motive of the trader is to book profit. It is seen that the physical delivery of shares was taken by the appellant. It is also argued that the intention of the assessee to invest in shares…

DSP MERRILL LYNCH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL C.I.T. RANGE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1581/MUM/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 140ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250Section 80Section 800

…same could be treated as investment. It is held by many courts that sale of bonus shares and right shares are in the nature of capital. Hence sale of right shares and bonus shares would attract only capital gains as held in the case of CIT v Madan Gopal Radhe 73 ITR 652 & CIT v Hindustan Industrial Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 4 TAXMAN 204(Bam). As a dealer of shares, the trader would not be holding on the shares for longer time, if the motive of the trader is to book profit. It is seen that the physical delivery of shares was taken by the appellant. It is also argued that the intention of the assessee to invest in shares…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KRUTI LALITKUMAR JAIN, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1554/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…class as an investment as well as stock in trade. For this proposition, the assessee places reliance on the following decisions 1. CIT v. Gopal Purohit [336 ITR 287 (Bom)] 2. CIT v. Yatish Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. [359 ITR 320] 3. CIT v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lai [73 ITR 652] 6 9] In the present case, the assessee in her individual capacity has held the lands as capital asset. Now, simply because the assessee is a partner/director in concerns engaged in real activity does not mean that the transaction undertaken by her in her individual capacity are also to be treated as business income. It is also to be appreciated…

PRAVEEN RANJAN SINHA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 399/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshpraveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Sa No. 57/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 399/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Praveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv Ms. Bhavya Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Dharambir Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharambir Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 2Section 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 94(8)

…hat bonus shares received formed part of the stock-in-trade and taking the cost of shares sold on average basis was also wrong. In this context, reliance has been placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Madan Gopal Radhyey Lal, 73 ITR 652 wherein the Supreme Court held that in the hands of the dealer of shares, any bonus shares received constitute a 'capital asset' unless specifically converted into stock-in-trade. Based on the aforesaid judgement, it is contended that the assessee received the bonus shares as a 'capital asset' and never converted the bonus shares into stock-in- tr…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 18 vs. M/S WIG INVESTMENT

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/169/2020HC Delhi15 Jan 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…no presumption in law that the acquisition of shares by an assessee is necessarily for trade as against investment. The courts have enunciated this principle in several decisions, including Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, [1969] 73 ITR 652 (SC); P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, 73 ITR 735 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v NSS Investments Ltd 2007 (277) ITR 149 (Mad); Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rewashanker A. Kothari (2006) 201 CTR Guj 510 and CIT vs Amit Jain 2015:DHC:2076-DB. Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:15.01.2024 16:56:57 Signa…

THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GAURI TANDON, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1846/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleacit – 15(1)(1) V. Gauri Tandon Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Tandon Beach House Mumbai - 400020 Plot No. 35(Pt), Aajad Road Juhu Koliwada, Santacruz (W) Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Aaapb4013C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Smiti Samant

Section 133(6)Section 54Section 54BSection 90

…hat bonus shares received formed part of the stock-in-trade and taking the cost of shares sold on average basis was also wrong. In this context, reliance has been placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Madan Gopal Radhyey Lal, 73 ITR 652 wherein the Supreme Court held that in the hands of the dealer of shares, any bonus shares received constitute a ‘capital asset’ unless specifically converted into stock-in-trade. Based on the aforesaid judgement, it is contended that the assessee received the bonus shares as a ‘capital asset’ and never converted the bonus shares into stock-intrad…

SURYA KANT GUPTA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 4(2), GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7828/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 55(2)(aa)

…ies have erred in confirming without bonus shares received form part of stock in trade and taking the cost of shares sold on an average basis also wrong. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Madan Gopal Radhe Lal 73 ITR 652 and also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Ashok Apparels Pvt. Ltd (2019) 106 Taxman.com 63 (Bombay High Court). The Ld. AR submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Inland Revenue Vs. John Blott (1921) 8 T.C. 101 has identical facts and no distinction can be mad…

SHRI. AMIT JAIN PROP M/S AMIT S FRAGRANCES,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1817/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1816 & 1817/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri Amit Jain, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Prop. M/S. Amit S. Fragrances, Income Tax, 37, Nms Compound, Circle-1, Erode – 638 001. Erode. [Pan: Afipj 5671F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri L.Shibi, C.S ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A.R.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. Jayaraman: The Assessee Filed These Two Appeals Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore, In Ita No.444/16-17 & 90/17-18 Dated 01.03.2018 For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16, Respectively. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, They Are Heard Together & Being Disposed Together, For Convenience Sake.

For Appellant: Shri L.Shibi, C.SFor Respondent: Shri A.R.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 111A

…sets, or capital gains on account of sale of such assets, has been spelt out and reiterated in a number of decisions. These include Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, [1969] 73 ITR 652 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v Associated Industrial Development Company 82 ITR 586 (SC); P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income tax, Kerala, 73 ITR 735 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Income Tax v NSS ITA Nos.1816 & 1817/Chny/2018 :- 8 -: Investments Ltd 2007 (277) ITR 149 (Mad). It was in the light of these decisions that the CBDT Cir…

SHRI. AMIT JAIN PROP M/S AMIT S FRAGRANCES,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1816/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1816 & 1817/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri Amit Jain, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Prop. M/S. Amit S. Fragrances, Income Tax, 37, Nms Compound, Circle-1, Erode – 638 001. Erode. [Pan: Afipj 5671F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri L.Shibi, C.S ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A.R.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. Jayaraman: The Assessee Filed These Two Appeals Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore, In Ita No.444/16-17 & 90/17-18 Dated 01.03.2018 For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16, Respectively. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, They Are Heard Together & Being Disposed Together, For Convenience Sake.

For Appellant: Shri L.Shibi, C.SFor Respondent: Shri A.R.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 111A

…sets, or capital gains on account of sale of such assets, has been spelt out and reiterated in a number of decisions. These include Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, [1969] 73 ITR 652 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v Associated Industrial Development Company 82 ITR 586 (SC); P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income tax, Kerala, 73 ITR 735 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Income Tax v NSS ITA Nos.1816 & 1817/Chny/2018 :- 8 -: Investments Ltd 2007 (277) ITR 149 (Mad). It was in the light of these decisions that the CBDT Cir…

G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LLP, (FORMERLY M/S. G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LTD), SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 833/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Sitaram, DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ariation are taxable under the Income-tax Act. Variation of its investments must amount to dealing in investments before such profits can be taxed as income under the Income Tax Act. " (c) In Commissioner of Income Tax, U. P v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, [1969J 73 ITR 652 (SC) the Supreme Court dealt with the issue, and discussed the question: "A trader may acquire a commodity in which he is dealing for his own purposes, and hold it apart from the stock-in-trade of his business. There is no presumption that every acquisition by a dealer in a particular commodity is acquisition for the purpose of his business; in ea…

G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LLP, (FORMERLY M/S. G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LTD), SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 832/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Sitaram, DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ariation are taxable under the Income-tax Act. Variation of its investments must amount to dealing in investments before such profits can be taxed as income under the Income Tax Act. " (c) In Commissioner of Income Tax, U. P v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, [1969J 73 ITR 652 (SC) the Supreme Court dealt with the issue, and discussed the question: "A trader may acquire a commodity in which he is dealing for his own purposes, and hold it apart from the stock-in-trade of his business. There is no presumption that every acquisition by a dealer in a particular commodity is acquisition for the purpose of his business; in ea…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DATAVISION SYSTEMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5957/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Acit, Vs. Datavision Systems P Ltd, Circle-10(1), 203, Pragati House, New Delhi 47-48, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaacd3381N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Baheti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And ACIT, Vs. Datavision Systems P Ltd, Circle-10(1), 203, Pragati House, New Delhi 47-48, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN:AAACD3381N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Ajay Baheti, CA Date of Hearing 05/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 18/09/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. ITA No. 5957/Del/2010 for assessment year 2007 – 2008, wherein the coordinate bench has passed its order dated 31/03/2011, on appeal before the…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 173/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 271A

…3 " Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur v M/s Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd., (1975) 100 ITR 706 (Supreme Court) " Commissioner of Income tax v Niraj Amidhar Surti (238 CTR 294) (HC-Gujarat) " Commissioner of Income Tax v Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, [1969] 73 ITR 652 (SC) " Income tax officer v Radha Birju Patel (ITAT - Mumbai) (ITA No.5382/Mum/ 2009) " Commissioner of Income tax v Trishul Investments Limited 305 ITR 434 (HC - Madras) " S Balan @ Shanmugam Balkrishnan Chettiar v Deputy Commissioner of Income tax [2009] 120 ITD 469 (ITAT-Pune) " Commissioner of Income tax v Mithlesh Kumari [1973] 92 ITR 9 (HC-D…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MALVIKA INVESTMENTS & SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 123/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv

…sets, or capital gains on account of sale of such assets, has been spelt out and reiterated in a number of decisions. These include Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, [1969] 73 ITR 652 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v Associated Industrial Development Company 82 ITR 586 (SC); P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income- tax, Kerala, 73 ITR 735 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Income Tax v NSS Investments Ltd 2007 (277) ITR 149 (Mad). It was in the light of these decisions that the CBDT Circular No. 4/2007, was issued, indicat…

ASHOK APPARELS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CEN. CIR.47, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

ITA 7303/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Respondent: Shri B Pruseth &

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…y relied upon the following judgment:- 20 ITA No.: 3561/Mum/2012 ITA No.:3562/Mum/2012 ITA No.:3563/Mum/2012 ITA No.:7303/Mum/2012 M/s Ashok Apparels P Ltd. 1. Atlas Corporation v. ITO –Mumbai ITAT (57 ITD 139); 2. CIT v. Madan Gopal Radheyal –Supreme Court (73 ITR 652) Mr. Mehta further pointed out that, the department has also accepted identical treatment of shares which are under consideration, i.e. conversion of bonus stock into investment in the case of shares of Sesa Goa, wherein the income from different portfolios was offered to tax under the head 'Income from business or profession' and 'Capital gains'…

ASHOK APPARELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

ITA 3563/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Respondent: Shri B Pruseth &

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…y relied upon the following judgment:- 20 ITA No.: 3561/Mum/2012 ITA No.:3562/Mum/2012 ITA No.:3563/Mum/2012 ITA No.:7303/Mum/2012 M/s Ashok Apparels P Ltd. 1. Atlas Corporation v. ITO –Mumbai ITAT (57 ITD 139); 2. CIT v. Madan Gopal Radheyal –Supreme Court (73 ITR 652) Mr. Mehta further pointed out that, the department has also accepted identical treatment of shares which are under consideration, i.e. conversion of bonus stock into investment in the case of shares of Sesa Goa, wherein the income from different portfolios was offered to tax under the head 'Income from business or profession' and 'Capital gains'…

ASHOK APPARELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

ITA 3562/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Respondent: Shri B Pruseth &

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…y relied upon the following judgment:- 20 ITA No.: 3561/Mum/2012 ITA No.:3562/Mum/2012 ITA No.:3563/Mum/2012 ITA No.:7303/Mum/2012 M/s Ashok Apparels P Ltd. 1. Atlas Corporation v. ITO –Mumbai ITAT (57 ITD 139); 2. CIT v. Madan Gopal Radheyal –Supreme Court (73 ITR 652) Mr. Mehta further pointed out that, the department has also accepted identical treatment of shares which are under consideration, i.e. conversion of bonus stock into investment in the case of shares of Sesa Goa, wherein the income from different portfolios was offered to tax under the head 'Income from business or profession' and 'Capital gains'…

ASHOK APPARELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

ITA 3561/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Respondent: Shri B Pruseth &

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…y relied upon the following judgment:- 20 ITA No.: 3561/Mum/2012 ITA No.:3562/Mum/2012 ITA No.:3563/Mum/2012 ITA No.:7303/Mum/2012 M/s Ashok Apparels P Ltd. 1. Atlas Corporation v. ITO –Mumbai ITAT (57 ITD 139); 2. CIT v. Madan Gopal Radheyal –Supreme Court (73 ITR 652) Mr. Mehta further pointed out that, the department has also accepted identical treatment of shares which are under consideration, i.e. conversion of bonus stock into investment in the case of shares of Sesa Goa, wherein the income from different portfolios was offered to tax under the head 'Income from business or profession' and 'Capital gains'…

ITO, WARD - 12(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANIMAYA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 439/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Sallong yaden, Addl.CIT,Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

…books of account the shares in question were ITA No.439/Kol/2009-M/s. Manimaya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2005-06 treated as investment and not as stock in trade. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Madan Gopal Radheylal 73 ITR 652 and CIT vs Associated Trial Development Co.Ltd. 82 ITR 586 wherein it was held that there is no prohibition in law for a person to hold a particular commodity as stock in trade of the business and at the same time hold similar commodity as investment. The Hon’ble Court held that one has to gather the intention of the persons holding a commodity. T…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ASCOT INVESTMENTS, NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 657/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:

For Appellant: ShriVed Jain AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain CIT(DR) &

Section 153CSection 48

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA: JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA nos. 657 & 658/Del/2013 Asstt. Yrs: 2008-09 & 2010-11 ACIT, Central Circle-25, Vs. M/s Ascort Investments, New Delhi. 102, Ratan Jyoti, 18, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-8. PAN: AAMFA 6159 Q AND ITA nos. 384 & 385/Del/2013 Asstt. Yrs: 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/s Ascort Investments, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-25, 102, Ratan Jyoti, New Delhi. 18, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-8. ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Department by : Shri Ravi Jain CIT(DR) & Shri S.L. Anuragi DR Ass…

Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT

What is Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT

ADDL CIT SP RG 22, MUMBAI vs. DSP MERRILL LYNCH LTD, MUMBAI

DSP MERRILL LYNCH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL C.I.T. RANGE 4(1), MUMBAI

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KRUTI LALITKUMAR JAIN, PUNE

PRAVEEN RANJAN SINHA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 18 vs. M/S WIG INVESTMENT

THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GAURI TANDON, MUMBAI

SURYA KANT GUPTA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 4(2), GURGAON

SHRI. AMIT JAIN PROP M/S AMIT S FRAGRANCES,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

SHRI. AMIT JAIN PROP M/S AMIT S FRAGRANCES,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LLP, (FORMERLY M/S. G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LTD), SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LLP, (FORMERLY M/S. G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LTD), SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DATAVISION SYSTEMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MALVIKA INVESTMENTS & SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ASHOK APPARELS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CEN. CIR.47, MUMBAI

ASHOK APPARELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

ASHOK APPARELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

ASHOK APPARELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

ITO, WARD - 12(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANIMAYA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ASCOT INVESTMENTS, NEW DELHI