Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT

73 ITR 652Supreme Court of India1969#4540 most cited

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

The intention of the assessee at the time of purchasing shares is a key criterion to determine capital gains treatment. This intention can be ascertained from how the purchase was treated in the assessee's books.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v CIT · capital gains · shares · intention of assessee · period of holding · long term capital gain · short term capital gain · 73 ITR 652 · SC

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 140ASection 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

period of holdinglong term capital gainsshort term capital gainlong term capital gaingross total incomesection 10salaryscrutiny assessmentprevious yearcompanybusinessinterest

Judgments citing Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ascot Investments, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the

ITA 4645/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkeyita No.4645/Del./2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Acit, Central Circle 25, Vs. M/S. Ascot Investments, New Delhi. 102, Ratan Jyoti Building, 18, Rajendra Place, New Delhi – 110 008. (Pan : Aamfa6159Q) Co No.177/Del/2014 (In Ita No.4645/Del./2013) (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Ascot Investments, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 25, 102, Ratan Jyoti Building, New Delhi. 18, Rajendra Place, New Delhi – 110 008. (Pan : Aamfa6159Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ashish Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 153C

…ell as an investor for same types of transactions done with different motives. (i) Ram Narain Sons (P) Ltd. v CIT as reported in 411TR 534 (SC), (ii) Dwarkadas Kesardev Morarka as reported in 44 ITR 625 (SC), (iii) CIT vs. Madan Gopal Radheylal as reported in 73 ITR 652 (SC) (iv) CIT v. Associated Development Co. Ltd. as reported in 82 ITR 586 (SC). 20. The above judgments clearly state that the same person can be a trader as well as investor in shares. 21. In a recent decision of Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sarmath Infrastructure (P) Ltd. as reported in 16 DTR (Lucknow) (Trib) 97, a view had bee…

ACIT, Circle - 7, Kolkata vs. C.D. Equifinance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1790/KOL/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 10(38)

…I.T.A. No. 1790/KOL./2008 Assessment year: 2005-2006 Assessment Year : 2006-2007 Assessment Year : 2007-2008 Assessment Year : 2006-2007 Page 1 of 24 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 1790/KOL/ 2008 Assessment Year : 2005-2006 & I.T.A. No. 961/KOL/ 2010 Assessment Year : 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,...................................Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, AAyakar Bhawan, 5th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 -Vs.- C.D. Equifinance Pvt. Li…

CIT vs. Amit Jain

ITA - 517 / 2012HC Delhi03 Mar 2015
Section 143

…, 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, ind…

CIT vs. Devasan Investment Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1103 / 2011HC Delhi16 Apr 2014

…having regard to the nature of investment, it is to be construed that the income bears the character of sale of a capital asset so as to attract capital gains tax – either STCG or LTCG. In Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, [1969] 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…

CIT vs. Devasan Investment Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1102 / 2011HC Delhi16 Apr 2014

…having regard to the nature of investment, it is to be construed that the income bears the character of sale of a capital asset so as to attract capital gains tax – either STCG or LTCG. In Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, [1969] 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pnb Finance & Industries Ltd

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to

ITA/306/2010HC Delhi18 Oct 2010
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…e said security constitutes an investment for the purpose of gaining the status of long term capital gain. In this context, we may refer to 2010:DHC:5102-DB a passage from the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, [1969] 73 ITR 652 (SC) : “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 each case the question is one of intention to be gathered fr…