Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT

41 ITR 685Supreme Court of India1961#1703 most cited

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

The principle of res judicata or estoppel does not apply to income tax proceedings, as each assessment year is a distinct unit. Mere entries in the accounts of a third party are not sufficient proof to make additions to an assessee's income.

67

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh · 41 ITR 685 · Supreme Court · res judicata · estoppel · income tax assessment · distinct assessment years · binding nature of assessment · Section 143 · previous year · burden of proof · third party accounts

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 269SS

Issues it is cited on

section 29section 28income-tax officersection 26section 10income from other sourcessection 80previous yearsection 143(1)transferappeal before the tribunalperson

Judgments citing Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

Appeal is allowed and order of the High Court is set aside

ITA 5334/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5332/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) ITA No.5333/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18) ITA No.5334/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida. (Appellant) M/s Advant IT Park Private Ltd. R-99F, Second Floor, Near Vs. Metro Station, Dilshad Garden, East Delhi-110095, New Delhi. PAN-AAFCA0572P (Respondent) C.O No.221/Del/2025 Arising out of ITA No.5332/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) C.O No.222/Del/2025 Arisi…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 5332/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5332/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) ITA No.5333/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18) ITA No.5334/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida. (Appellant) M/s Advant IT Park Private Ltd. R-99F, Second Floor, Near Vs. Metro Station, Dilshad Garden, East Delhi-110095, New Delhi. PAN-AAFCA0572P (Respondent) C.Ο No.221/Del/2025 Arising out of ITA No.5332/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) C.O No.222/Del/2025 Arisi…

The A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., vs. The Deputy Director Of Income-tax (Exemptions)-III

ITTA/429/2011HC Telangana18 Nov 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

…alization or a change of investment but an act done in what is truly the carrying on of a business, the amount recovered as appreciation will be assessable as business profit as held in the case of Rajabahadur Vishweshwara Singh V. CIT reported in (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC). In such a situation what is to be found out for such determination is whether at the time of purchasing a particular land, the assessee had an intention to sell it subsequently at a profit or only to make an investment. The presence of commercial motive is a primary legal requisite of trade. This commercial motive is established by…

SHRI GANESH BHIVRAJ BHUTADA,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1132/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…decision has held that mere entries in the accounts of a third party are not sufficient to prove that the assessee has indulged in transactions outside its books. 20. He also relied on the following decisions: i) Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Brij Lal Lohia and Mahabir Prasad Khemka (1972) 84 ITR 273 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (1995) 211 ITR 634 (Ker) iv) ITO vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons vide ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023, order dated 10.06.2024 v) Vinit Ranawat vs. ACIT (2015) 173 TTJ 414 (Pune – Trib.) 21. He accordingly submitted that the add…

SHRI GANESH BHIVRAJ BHUTADA,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1131/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…decision has held that mere entries in the accounts of a third party are not sufficient to prove that the assessee has indulged in transactions outside its books. 20. He also relied on the following decisions: i) Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Brij Lal Lohia and Mahabir Prasad Khemka (1972) 84 ITR 273 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (1995) 211 ITR 634 (Ker) iv) ITO vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons vide ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023, order dated 10.06.2024 v) Vinit Ranawat vs. ACIT (2015) 173 TTJ 414 (Pune – Trib.) 21. He accordingly submitted that the add…

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

…In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed on the following decisions: CIT vs. D&M Components Ltd. 364 ITR 179; CIT vs. H. Holck Larsen (1986) 3 SCC 364; PVS Raju vs. ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 75; Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 685 and P M Mohammad Meerakhan vs. CIT (1969) 2 SCC 25. 8.2 As regards the other issue, it was submitted that once the Tribunal concluded (and in this regard, agreed with the observation of the AO) that Mr Pradeep Wig and Mrs Neera Wig were majority shareholders having control over KPFSE and KICIPL, it ought to have logically held that the afor…

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

…sold the same for Rs.554,23,19,978/-. The purchase and sale are done within a short period. The magnitude of purchase and sale of shares shows that it is a business income. The Supreme Court in the case of Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh & Others vs. CIT (SC) 41 ITR 685 clearly held that the magnitude of purchase and sale of shares is a determining factor to decide whether income from purchase and sale of shares is to be treated as business income or capital gains. The magnitude of transaction 10 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. in this case clearly shows that it…

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

…sold the same for Rs.554,23,19,978/-. The purchase and sale are done within a short period. The magnitude of purchase and sale of shares shows that it is a business income. The Supreme Court in the case of Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh & Others vs. CIT (SC) 41 ITR 685 clearly held that the magnitude of purchase and sale of shares is a determining factor to decide whether income from purchase and sale of shares is to be treated as business income or capital gains. The magnitude of transaction 10 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. in this case clearly shows that it…

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF UTILITIES LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 6432/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Yagya Saini Kakkar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…arned and other essential details. The lower authorities-including the AO considered the cumulative effect of these factors and also all the relevant authorities, starting from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CII' [1961] 41 ITR 685. In this background the assessee’s assertion that the previous year's assessment- which had accepted the reporting of the transaction which he claims to be identical, is unpersuasive. The previous year's assessment order (for AY 2008-09) in fact did not lead any discussion on this aspect and appear to have merely accepted the assessee's contention…

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF UTILITIES LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 6431/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Yagya Saini Kakkar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…arned and other essential details. The lower authorities-including the AO considered the cumulative effect of these factors and also all the relevant authorities, starting from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CII' [1961] 41 ITR 685. In this background the assessee’s assertion that the previous year's assessment- which had accepted the reporting of the transaction which he claims to be identical, is unpersuasive. The previous year's assessment order (for AY 2008-09) in fact did not lead any discussion on this aspect and appear to have merely accepted the assessee's contention…

M/S. SOGEFI ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SOGEFI- MNR ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2089/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…iate to refer to the caselaws wherein it is held that Bench can draw different conclusion if there is adequate justification to depart from the earlier view i.e., where subsequently new or more facts come to light [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC); CIT v. Brij Lal Lohia Mahabir Prasad Khemka [1972] 84 ITR 273 (SC); Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 326 (Cal); CIT V. Manaklal Porwal [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT…

M/S. SOGEFI ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1698/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…iate to refer to the caselaws wherein it is held that Bench can draw different conclusion if there is adequate justification to depart from the earlier view i.e., where subsequently new or more facts come to light [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC); CIT v. Brij Lal Lohia Mahabir Prasad Khemka [1972] 84 ITR 273 (SC); Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 326 (Cal); CIT V. Manaklal Porwal [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT…

M/S. SOGEFI ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1697/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…iate to refer to the caselaws wherein it is held that Bench can draw different conclusion if there is adequate justification to depart from the earlier view i.e., where subsequently new or more facts come to light [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC); CIT v. Brij Lal Lohia Mahabir Prasad Khemka [1972] 84 ITR 273 (SC); Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 326 (Cal); CIT V. Manaklal Porwal [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT…

M/S. SOGEFI ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1696/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…iate to refer to the caselaws wherein it is held that Bench can draw different conclusion if there is adequate justification to depart from the earlier view i.e., where subsequently new or more facts come to light [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC); CIT v. Brij Lal Lohia Mahabir Prasad Khemka [1972] 84 ITR 273 (SC); Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 326 (Cal); CIT V. Manaklal Porwal [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT…

M/S SOGEFI MNR FILTRATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 757/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…iate to refer to the caselaws wherein it is held that Bench can draw different conclusion if there is adequate justification to depart from the earlier view i.e., where subsequently new or more facts come to light [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC); CIT v. Brij Lal Lohia Mahabir Prasad Khemka [1972] 84 ITR 273 (SC); Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 326 (Cal); CIT V. Manaklal Porwal [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT…

K.RAHEJA IT PARK (HYDERABAD) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahushri Assessment Year: 2011-12 K. Raheja It Park ` Dy. Commissioner Of (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aacck 1914G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Ms. Aarthi Sathe Revenue By Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2021

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…ible case. Explanation to Sec.263 squarely applies to the present case. 5. It is submitted that it is trite law that Res Judicata does not apply to Income Tax proceedings as was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh[(1961)41 ITR 685(SC)J. As on 23.01.2015 on which a show-cause notice was issued for the present year, time would not have been available to initiate revisionary proceedings for earlier year. Merely because there is failure to take action for earlier years, the assessee cannot claim deduction in the present year. It is humbly submitted that principle of consistency…

RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1132/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. N. K. Choudharyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ratna Commercial Vs. Adit Enterprises Pvt Ltd. 4Th Floor, Range-21 Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Rouse, New Delhi Avenue, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 35DSection 45

…at the Ld. CIT(A) has given valid reasons while upholding the action of the AO in treating short term capital gain as business income. He has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh Vs. CIT reported in 41 ITR 685 which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Further the assessee has been regularly trading in shares and, therefore, there is no justification for treating the transactions as disposal of investment and the AO has correctly taxed the same as regular business income of the assessee. He accordingly submitted that the order of the…

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

…is business income through purchase and sale of shares or other tradable capital assets, 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…

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

…is business income through purchase and sale of shares or other tradable capital assets, 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…

ACIT - 24(1), MUMBAI vs. DIPAK KANAYALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2013-2014

ITA 3572/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Dipak Kanayalal Shah, Income Tax-24, 31-B, 1St Floor, Laxmi Estate, Room No. 604, Piramal Azad Road, Andheri (East), Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Vs. Mumbai - 400069 Mumbai - 400012 Pan: Aveps4654B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 06/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/08/2019

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143

…rred in allowing business income of Rs. 3,60,21,982/- as Long Term Capital Gains ignoring the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 173 (Guj) and Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh vs. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC) where it was held that if the volume, frequency & regularity with which transactions are carried out indicate systematic and organized activity with profit motive, then it would be a case of business profit and not capital gain. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in directing the AO to trea…

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4