How many judgments cite Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. CIT?

15 judgments on BharatTax cite Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. CIT (144 ITR 709), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(38), Section 143(3), Section 45, Section 70, Section 71, Section 74.

Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. CIT

144 ITR 709High Court1983#7540 most cited

What is Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. CIT authority for?

Capital loss arising from the sale of shares can be carried forward to subsequent years. The accounting treatment of shares as a capital asset in the books of account confirms that their sale generates capital profit or loss.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Royal Calcutta Turf Club v CIT · 144 ITR 709 · capital loss · carry forward · sale of shares · capital asset · accounting treatment · capital gains · Section 70 · Section 71 · Section 74

Also reported as

12 Taxmann 133

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 45 Section 70 Section 71 Section 74 Section 115JB Section 2(14)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 74 section 4(1)section 10(33)section 71 section 47 section 70 transfer of capital asset section 2(14)section 48 section 45 section 10(38)

Judgments citing Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. CIT

Sahara India Corp Investment Ltd, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 1750/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1750/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Sahara India Corp Investment Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax, I-Kapoorthala Complex, Vs. Central Circle–1, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up Jhandewalan, New Delhi Pan: Aaacs1707R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Sh. Arpit Goyal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.06.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

…ntended that the said assessed capital loss should be allowed to be carried forward to subsequent years. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the following decisions:  Karanchand Premchand Ltd: [1960] 40 ITR 106 (SC)  Royal Calcutta Turf Club: 144 ITR 709 (Cal)  Raptakos Brett & Co Ltd.: [2015] 69 SOT 383 (Mum)  Shiv Kumar Jatia: ITA 7256/Del/2019 (Del Trib) 6. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Emphasizing on the accounting treatment of shares of M/s. PDOECL given by the assessee in its regular books of accounts itself, the Ld. SR DR submitte…

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…orted in 40 ITR 106(SC) , which has been followed and applied in CIT vs Hariprasad and Co. Pvt Ltd. reported in 99 ITR 118(SC). The issue is also covered by the decision of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club vs CIT reported in 144 ITR 709 (Cal) and decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Raptakos Brett and Co Ltd. vs DCIT reported in 69 SOT 383 (Mum Trib). Mr. Nikhil Sawhney e) When two conflicting views are possible on a particular issue, then the construction that is favourable to the assessee must be adopted was already held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v…

Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3316/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Somogyan Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. CIT (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/o S R B C & Associates LLP, 14th 16th floor, Room No. 1615, Air India floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. PAN NO. AADCM 5927 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sunil Moti Lala Revenue by : Ms. Somogyan Pal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 29/08/2024 : 28/10/2024 Date of…

Mr. Tarun Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

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

ITA 1213/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…- ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Raptakos Bros referred supra. Moreover, we find that the same issue in dispute was subject matter of consideration by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club vs CIT reported in 144 ITR 709 (Cal) which has been considered by the Mumbai Tribunal supra. Hence now we are left with a situation that one decision of non-jurisdictional high court (i.e Kerala) is against assessee and one decision of non-jurisdictional high court (i.e. Calcutta) is favouring assessee. Hence as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vegeta…

Mr. Tarun Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

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

ITA 1212/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

Rita Gupta, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir.2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 2(14)Section 45Section 45(1)Section 47

…he case of United Investments vs. ACIT [TS-379-ITAT-2019 (Kol)] and Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT [TS-326-ITAT-2015 (Mum)-TP]. The Ld. A.R has relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club vs. CIT in [144 ITR 709 (Cal)]. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court while passing the above order has considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. KaramchandPremchand Ltd. in [1960] 40 ITR 106 (SC). The Ld. A.R distinguished the decisions as relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the appellate o…

Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Circle-4, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 380/PUN/2020[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he AO has relied on the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani vs. ACIT (2014) (367 ITR 261), and has disregarded an earlier judgement of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club vs. CIT (1983) (144 ITR 709), which was also not considered by the Gujarat High Court. The AO has also chosen to disregard series of decisions of the Tribunal ITA No.380/PUN/2020 for A.Y. 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Pune (A) winch have considered the ratio of both the judgements of the High Courts and have come to the conclusion t…

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143

…sessee supported his contention before him relying on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT versus Karamchand Premchand Ltd (1960) 40 ITR 106 and of the honourable Calcutta High Court in case of Royal Calcutta Turf club versus CIT (1983) 144 ITR 709. The learned CIT – A held that both these decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Thus, assessee is in appeal before us. 14. Assessee has raised three sub grounds in only one ground of appeal. Those relate to claim and allowability of such loss on sale of long-term capital assets o…

Netesoft India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -10(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 5359/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 70

…sically not income, would thus apply with equal force in the instant case, as it did in the case of Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. It is this that led us to state of the reliance by the assessee on the decision in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 709 (Cal.) as completely misplaced. (iii)In G.K. Ramamurthy v. JCIT [2010] 2 ITR(T) 139 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai 1TAT has after considering the intent of the introduction of provisions of section 10(38) has held as under:- " ...With a view to simplify the tax regime on securities transactions; it was proposed to levy a tax at the rate of 15 per cen…

Abdullabhai Hasanali Through L/H Zohrabai, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Cir-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 318/NAG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

…making of original assessment order dated 11.08.2006. This view was in existence right from the time of making an assessment i.e. 01.06.1992 vide the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club Vs. CIT reported in (1983) 144 ITR 709 (Cal). Considering the above, it is evident there is a view already in existence which was followed by the Assessing Officer at the time of allowing claim of assessee. Considering the same, view taken by the CIT during revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act constitutes an another view. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the…

Abdullabhai Hasanali Through L/H Zohrabai, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Cir-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 317/NAG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

Shri. Abdullabhai Hasanali, Nagpur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, -II, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 621/NAG/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

Rare Investments, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) - 28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3409/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Rare Investments Vs. The Commissioner Of 151, Nariman Point Income Tax (28), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 021 R.No.114, Aaykar Bhavan Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aahfr8059H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 70

…Tribunal in the case of Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.3317/Mum/2009 & 1692/Mum/2010 dated 10/06/2015 which in turn placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club vs. CIT reported in 144 ITR 709 (CAL) wherein the facts as well as the decision rendered thereon are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience. “3. The brief facts of the case, qua the issue raised in ground no.1 are that the assessee is a pharmaceutical company, engaged in manufacturing and sale of pharmaceuticals, formulations, dietetic specialities and animal husband…

DCIT 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2005-06 is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 726/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 726/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) The Dcit 15(3)2, Vs. M/S Strides Arcolab Ltd. Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, 206, Devrata, Sector-17 Aaykar Bhavan, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Co No. 128/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) M/S Strides Arcolab Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Strides Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Arcolab Limited), No. 451, 4Th Floor, 201, Devrata, Sector-17 Aaykar Bhavan. Vashi, M.K. Road, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Mumbai - 400020 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia (CIT DR)

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143Section 154

…Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT (TS-326-ITAT-2015-Mum) has decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee. Since, the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal is based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court passed in the case of Royal Calcutta Tuff Club vs. CIT 144 ITR 709, there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to interfere with the same. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the entire material on record including the orders passed by the authorities below and the cases relied upon by the said authorities. The only issue to be determined in this case is whether the Ld. CIT (A…

Vibhadeep Investment & Trading Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 4751/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Vibhadeep Investments & Acit (Osd)-3(3) Trading Limited Room No. 620 Vs. Mafatlal House, Backbay Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Reclamation, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacv1946M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…fund, which is chargeable to STT. Section 10(38) cannot be read into section 70 or 71 or sections 45 to 48. In support of his contention, he strongly relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 709 (Cal). In this decision he submitted that similar issue with regard to the losses on account of breeding horses and pigs which are exempt u/s. 10(27) whether can be set off against its income of other source under the head “business”. The Hon’ble High Court after considering the relevant provisions of section 10(27) and section 70, held that sect…