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

67 judgments on BharatTax cite Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT (41 ITR 685), spanning 2010 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 132, Section 133A, Section 142(1), Section 143(1).

Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT

41 ITR 685Supreme Court of India1961#1688 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 115BBE Section 132 Section 133A Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C Section 269SS

Issues it is cited on

section 29 section 28 income-tax officer section 26 section 10 income from other sources section 80 previous year section 143(1)transfer appeal before the tribunal person

Judgments citing Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT

Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai vs. Dipak K. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5135/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…3, 4647- and Short 2 Shri Deepak K. Shah Term Capital Loss of Rs. 15, 38,4187- and 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) wherein it is stated that when the assessee has huge quantum periodic, repetitive and voluminous with substantial regularity of transactions then it indicate systematic and organized activity with profit motive." 2. "Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to treat the inc…

ITO Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Aum Capital Market Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 302/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(4), Kolkata..………....................................….….……………….…......Appellant M/S. Aum Capital Market Pvt. Ltd.....................…..…….……………………………………………..……Respondent 5, Lower Rowdon Street Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan: Aaaco 7624 B] Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 7Th,2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 28Th,2018 Order Per S.S. Godara, Jm :- This Revenue’S Appeal For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 18/11/2016 Passed In Case No. Ita No.1125/Cit(A)-4/Range-10/Kol/14015 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(5)

…actions are carried out indicate systematic and organized activity with profit motive, then it would be a case of business profits and not capital gain. CIT Vs. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd., 113 ITR 173 (Guj); Raja Bahadur Viswshwara Singh Vs. CIT, 41 ITR 685 (SC). 7 I.T.A. No. 302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Aum Capital Market Pvt. Ltd (d) Purchase without an intention to resell where they are sold under changed circumstances would be capital gains. CIT Vs. PKN, 60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circ…

Shri Sharad Agrawal, Indore vs. The JCIT Range-4, Indore

In the result, all these three appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed

ITA 153/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2009-10

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ur attentions towards magnitude of transactions of purchase of sale of mutual funds and these been held for very short period. Ld. DR placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh (Deceased) & Ors. Vs. CIT 41 ITR 685 and CIT vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. 100 ITR 706. 12. We have heard the rival contention and perused the record placed before us. The common issue before us is that whether from purchase and sale of mutual funds earned by the assessee are to be taxed as short term capital gain or business income. We find that the assessee has been re…

Ramesh G Porwal, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1727/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…onomic gain. The legal position, with regard to the distinguishing features of business income, with reference to a number of decisions by the apex court, as under, has neither been disputed nor is disputable: (a) Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh V. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 685(SC); (b) Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 486 (SC); (c) CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC); (d) A.V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 67 (SC); (e) CIT v. P.K.N. Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 65 (SC); and (f) CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd.[1971] 82 ITR 586 (SC). 5.2…

Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax -Xiii & Anr

ITA/86/2018HC Delhi15 Mar 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

…ails. 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 vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC). In this background the assesse’s assertion that the ITA 86/2018 Page 5 of 5 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…

Vidyasagar M.P Sah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 527/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vidyasagar M. P. Sah Dy. Cit-23(3), बनाम/ 22-A, Bandstand Society, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 197-C, Kane Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafps 5412 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Aarjoo Garodia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.01.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs.3,51,66,426/- Treated As Business Income 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs.3,51,66,426/- As 'Business Income1 Without Appreciating The Crucial Facts That The Assessee Is A Professional / Consultant For Exploration & Drilling Activities For Oil Wells / Rigs Etc. Which Is The Principal Source Of Income Since 32 Years, Wherein He Has To Devote Maximum Time & The Activity Has Been Accepted By The Department In All The Prior Years As Well As In The Relevant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Aarjoo Garodia

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एफ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 527/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vidyasagar M. P. Sah Dy. CIT-23(3), बनाम/ 22-A, Bandstand Society, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 197-C, Kane Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAFPS 5412 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Aarjoo Garodia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date of He…

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5845/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 133(6)

…rm investments. Profits realised by the sale of shares may be capital if the seller is an ordinary investor changing his securities, but it may be income if the seller of the shares is trading in shares, as held in Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC). The substantial nature of the transactions, the magnitude of the shares purchased and sold and the ratio between the purchases and sales and the holdings, reveals the intention of the assessee as a trader in shares and not as an investor.. In the instant case, the assessee had opening investment of Rs. 1 crore in shares while shares worth Rs…

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

…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 Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC); CIT v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal [1969] 73 ITR 652 (SC); CIT v Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd. [1971] 4 | P a g e ACIT,Vs. Datavision Systems P Ltd ITA No. 5957/Del/2010 & 4260/Del/2012 Assessment Year:2007-08 and 2008-09 82 ITR 586 (SC); P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 735 (SC) and CIT v N.S.S. Investments (P.) Lt…

Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai vs. Dipak Kanayalal Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 3661/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhacit-24(1), फनाभ/ Shri Dipak Kanayalal Shah, 31-B, 1St Floor, Laxmi Estate, Mumbai. Vs. Azad Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 012. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aveps4654B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.12/M/2017 (Ay 2010-11) Shri Dipak Kanayalal Shah, फनाभ/ Acit-24(1), 31-B, 1St Floor, Laxmi Estate, Mumbai. Vs. Azad Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 012. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aveps4654B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora / Mr. Hemen Chandariya प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Ms. Beena Santosh, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora / Mr. HemenFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh, DR

Section 10(38)Section 111Section 111ASection 14ASection 2(29)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT-24(1), फनाभ/ Shri Dipak Kanayalal Shah, 31-B, 1st Floor, Laxmi Estate, Mumbai. Vs. Azad Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 012. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AVEPS4654B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.12/M/2017 (AY 2010-11) Shri Dipak Kanayalal Shah, फनाभ/ ACIT-24(1), 31-B, 1st Floor, Laxmi Estate, Mumbai. Vs. Azad Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 012. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AVEPS4654B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / A…

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 489/JPR/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: None (Date was noted)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT-DR

Section 145(3)Section 28Section 43(5)

…d 31-08-1989 and No.04/2007 dated 16-06-2007. The AO also relied on following case laws to this effect. (i) Rajputana Textile (Agencies) Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 743 (SC) (ii) W.L. Knopp vs. CIT 16 ITR 398 (Mad) (iii) Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh vs. CIT 41 ITR 685 (iv) Bharat Development (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 4 Taxman 58 (Del.) Conclusively, the AO treated the income of Short term capital gain of Rs. 11,55,563/- as ‘’Income from Business or Profession’’. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO treating Rs. 11,55,663/- as business income u/s 43(5) of the Act. Now the assessee is i…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1527/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…zed activity with profit motive, then it would be a case of business profits and not capital gain. CIT vs Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd reported in (1978) 113 ITR 173 (Guj) and Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh (Deceased) & Ors vs CIT reported in (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC) (d) Purchase without an intention to resell where they are sold under changed circumstances would be capital gains. CIT vs P.K.N. Co. Ltd reported in (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale of businss profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Idea International P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 7116/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7116/M/11 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir. 6(1) बनाम/ M/S. Idea International Pvt. R.No.506, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Mumbai - 400020 Arcade, Mahalaxmi, Worli, Mumbai - 400034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci1527J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S.Naik

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 14A

…is a business activity, depends on peculiar facts of the case - G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co. Vs. CIT, (1958) 35 ITR 594 (SC). Frequency and regularity of share transactions is organized manner indicate business activity [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh Vs. CIT, 41 ITR 685(SC)]. CBDT in its Circular no.4 of 2007 dated 15th June 2007, has primarily laid down three criterias for deciding as to whether any transaction is trading or investment – (a) magnitude of purchase and sales; (b) period of holding and (c) motive behind it. It is also true, as held in several decisions, that though the frequency of transaction is a…

D.C.I.T CC - VIII, Kolkata vs. M/S Purbanchal Leasing Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1429/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan,J.M. & Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT,DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.1429/Kol/2013-M/s. Purvanchal Leasing Ltd. A.Y.2006-07 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA (Before Shri N. V. Vasudevan,J.M. & Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M.) ITA No. 1429/Kol/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-2007 DCIT,Central Circle-VIII, Vs M/s. Purvanchal leasing Kolkata. Ltd. 31, Shibtolla Street, PAN: AACCP9719J Kolkata (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCA. Revenue by : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT,DR Date of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 19.10.2016 ORDER Per Shri N. V. Vasudevan, J.M. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order da…

A.C.I.T. Circle 21(1), Mumbai vs. Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 4571/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…eneral principles which are relevant to decide the issue are discussed as under:- The Courts as well as the CBDT in circular no. 4/2007, have held that an assessee can be investor as well as trader simultaneously. In the case of Raja Bahadur Wisheshwara Singh 41 ITR 685 (SC), it has been held that the magnitude, frequency, ratio of purchase & sales and holding will indicate the whether assessee was dealing in shares as business. Similar views have been held in 81 ITR 179(Cal), 74 ITR 692(Bom), 42 ITR 743(SC), 41 ITR' 685,692(SC). Hence the overall effect of far-t or s like volume and number of transactions, perio…

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3543/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3542/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3541/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

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

…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 Investments Ltd 2007 (277) ITR 149 (Mad). It was in…

Anand R Bahl, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed and that by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7706/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Hiten M. Vasant (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth (DR)

Section 2(14)

…tter, delineating the settled law, and which we may, therefore, cite as under: State of Punjab vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [1968] 70 ITR 730 (SC); Rajputana Textiles (Agencies) Ltd. vs. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 743 (SC); Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh vs. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC); Lakshminarayan Ram Gopan and Son Ltd. vs. The Government of Hyderabad 1954] 25 ITR 449 (SC); Allahabad Bank ltd. vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 519 (SC); CIT vs. Smt. Minal Rameshchandra [1987] 167 ITR 0507 (Guj); CIT vs .Godavari Corporation Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 835 (Mad); CIT vs. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 173 (Guj); A.P. D…