What is Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT authority for?

An isolated transaction, even if not part of the assessee's regular business, can be considered an adventure in the nature of trade if it bears clear indicia of trade. The fact that a transaction is not in the ordinary course of business does not change its character.

How many judgments cite Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT?

31 judgments on BharatTax cite Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT (37 ITR 242), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153D, Section 1961, Section 2(13) of the Income Tax Act, Section 250, Section 250 of the Income Tax Act.

Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT (37 ITR 242)

Tulika Kedia, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

ITA 147/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 147/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 271BSection 44A

…the nature of the transaction, frequency and volume of transactions etc. For this, attention is invited to the following judgements where this issue has been considered. (i) CIT v. PKN. and Co Ltd (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC) (ii) Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 242 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC) (iv) G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 1TR 594 (SC) Further, CBDT Circular No. 4/2007. dated 15-6-2007-Appendix II (Page no. 217) may also be referred to. 9 Tuleka Kedia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur (b) In case such transactions are for…

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Gupta C K, Mumbai

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

ITA 123/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit-17(1) Gupta C K O/O The Government Of India 21, K. T. Building, O/O The Dy. Cit Cirr 17(1), Devji Ratansey Marg, Masjid Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Room No. 117, Bunder, Mumbai-400 009 Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri Rajen DamaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 250Section 50DSection 50ESection 54E

…ithin the definition of an adventure in the nature of trade if it bears the clear indicia of trade (Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits [1954] 26 ITR 765 (SC); G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. (supra); Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 242 (SC); Dalmia Cement Ltd. (supra). The fact that the transaction is not in the way of business of the assessee does not alter the character of the transaction (G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. (supra); Saroj Kumar Mazumdar (supra); Dalmia Cement Ltd. (supra). 15. It is impossible to evolve any formula which can be applied in determining the character of…

Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera, Surat vs. ITO(International Taxation), Surat

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren R.Vepari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271Section 45(2)

…cceed in receiving higher price of land in the market. Merely because of certain developments in the town, if the consequence is the increase in the price do not establish that a trade activity was carried out by an assessee. (ii) Sarojkumar Mazumdar vs. CIT (37 ITR 242) [SC] The Hon'ble Court has observed while discussing the nature of business activity that though the assessee was engaged in various types of businesses as a share-holder or a Director, as also in building contracts, but dealing in landed estate was not in the line of his business. The court has said that if such transaction was in the line of hi…

Sh. Surender Meena, 36, Pratap Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…his own plot, purchases a plot and with borrowed funds puts up the flats and sells them, then it can be said that he is indulging in a trading activity. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Saroj Kumar 18 Sh. Surender Meena vs. PCIT Mazumdar v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 242, the dividing line between the two types of cases is very thin. The decision of this court in CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. [1966] 62 ITR 578, has only reiterated the position that in order to hold that an activity is in the nature of an adventure, there must be positive materials to prove that the assessee intended to trade in such an activity…

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 393/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam, CIT-DR

Section 80P(2)

…is not in the ordinary course or line of business of the assessee, but is an isolated or single instance of a transaction, the onus to prove that the transaction is an adventures in the nature of trade is on the department- Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT (1959)37 ITR 242,248 (SC) Dalmia Cement Ltd v. CIT (1976)105 ITR 633, 640 (SC) Commrs. of Inl. Rev. v. Reinhold (1953)34 Tax Cas. 389,393 In the instant case Ld. A.O had failed to make out any case to prove the interest income considered by the assessee as business income to be not a business income. Therefore the treatment of interest income as income from other…

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 392/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam, CIT-DR

Section 80P(2)

…is not in the ordinary course or line of business of the assessee, but is an isolated or single instance of a transaction, the onus to prove that the transaction is an adventures in the nature of trade is on the department- Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT (1959)37 ITR 242,248 (SC) Dalmia Cement Ltd v. CIT (1976)105 ITR 633, 640 (SC) Commrs. of Inl. Rev. v. Reinhold (1953)34 Tax Cas. 389,393 In the instant case Ld. A.O had failed to make out any case to prove the interest income considered by the assessee as business income to be not a business income. Therefore the treatment of interest income as income from other…

Sunita Adukia, Ranchi vs. DCIT Cir-2, Ranchi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 15/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajesh Kumar Adukia, Vyapar Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ranchi Bhawan, Lalji Hirji Road, S.N.G. Road, Ranchi PAN/GIR No.AAWPA 4845 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunita Adukia, Vyapar Bhawan, Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ranchi Lalji Hirji Road, S.N.G. Road, Ranchi PAN/GIR No.AAWPA 4846 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, CA Revenue by : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 29/08/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30/10/20…

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos.494 to 497/Coch/2018 Assessment Years : 2011-12- 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Shri Arun Majeed, Income-tax, Central Circle, S/o Dr. P.H. abdul Majeed, Thrissur. “Palak”, Temple Lane, Veliyannur, Thrissur-680 021. [PAN: ADOPA 9351R] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Shri Alok Nath Mitra, CIT(DR) Assessee by Shri Jose Kappen, CA Date of hearing 17/01/2019 Date of pronouncement 06/02/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals fi…

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos.494 to 497/Coch/2018 Assessment Years : 2011-12- 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Shri Arun Majeed, Income-tax, Central Circle, S/o Dr. P.H. abdul Majeed, Thrissur. “Palak”, Temple Lane, Veliyannur, Thrissur-680 021. [PAN: ADOPA 9351R] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Shri Alok Nath Mitra, CIT(DR) Assessee by Shri Jose Kappen, CA Date of hearing 17/01/2019 Date of pronouncement 06/02/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals fi…

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 495/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos.494 to 497/Coch/2018 Assessment Years : 2011-12- 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Shri Arun Majeed, Income-tax, Central Circle, S/o Dr. P.H. abdul Majeed, Thrissur. “Palak”, Temple Lane, Veliyannur, Thrissur-680 021. [PAN: ADOPA 9351R] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Shri Alok Nath Mitra, CIT(DR) Assessee by Shri Jose Kappen, CA Date of hearing 17/01/2019 Date of pronouncement 06/02/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals fi…

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 494/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos.494 to 497/Coch/2018 Assessment Years : 2011-12- 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Shri Arun Majeed, Income-tax, Central Circle, S/o Dr. P.H. abdul Majeed, Thrissur. “Palak”, Temple Lane, Veliyannur, Thrissur-680 021. [PAN: ADOPA 9351R] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Shri Alok Nath Mitra, CIT(DR) Assessee by Shri Jose Kappen, CA Date of hearing 17/01/2019 Date of pronouncement 06/02/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals fi…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member& Sri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member] 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 concl…

Shivkumar Radheshyam Sharma, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 749/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.749/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Ms. Sabana Parveen

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…was relevant. This proposition of law is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases. i) CIT Vs. PVK Co. Ltd. (1966) 66 ITR 65 (SC) ii) Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) iii) Sarojkumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 242(SC) The decisions relied on by the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the case under appeal, as in the said decisions the assessee had transferred plot which was stock in trade of the assessee, whereas in the case under appeal the impugned plot was not stock in trade but fixed asset. 5 A.Y.2011-12 From the balance sheets filed by the a…

Manaz Retail P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 7636/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Manz Retail P. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range-8(2) Knowledge House, Shyam Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Vs. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), R. No. Manz Retail P. Ltd. 209, 2Nd Floor, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vipul Joshi,Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr.Vipul Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Neil Philip, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…ause the resale was foreseen and contemplated when the investment was made and the possibility of enhanced values motivated the investment (see [Leeming v. Jones (1930) 15 TC 333 (HL)] and also the decisions of this court in Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 242 (SC) and Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC). Manz Retail P. Ltd. In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Fraser [(1942) 24 TC 498, 502] Lord Normand said: ‘The individual who enters into a purchase of an article or commodity may have in view the resale of it at a profit, and yet it may be that that is not the only purpose for which h…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mohinder Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2310/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2309/Del./2011 Assessment Year 2006-2007 DCIT, Central Circle-18, Shri Arjun Puri, vs Room No.327, ARA W-82A, Greater Kailash-II, Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan New Delhi – 110 048. Extn., New Delhi -110055 PAN AAEPP9695G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2310/Del./2011 Assessment Year 2006-2007 DCIT, Central Circle-18, Shri Mohinder Puri, vs Room No.327, ARA W-82A, Greater Kailash-II, Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan New Delhi – 110 048.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Arjun Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2309/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2309/Del./2011 Assessment Year 2006-2007 DCIT, Central Circle-18, Shri Arjun Puri, vs Room No.327, ARA W-82A, Greater Kailash-II, Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan New Delhi – 110 048. Extn., New Delhi -110055 PAN AAEPP9695G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2310/Del./2011 Assessment Year 2006-2007 DCIT, Central Circle-18, Shri Mohinder Puri, vs Room No.327, ARA W-82A, Greater Kailash-II, Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan New Delhi – 110 048.…

Mahaveer Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 209/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (Addl.CIT)

Section 2(14)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 209/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke Shri Mahaveer Yadav Income Tax Officer Vs. S/o Shri Gangadeen, Ward-1(5) VPO- Budhi Bawal, Tehsil- Alwar Kotkasim, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BNOPM8131L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenu…

Pradeep Vatrana, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 930/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P. P. Meena (JCIT)

Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 930/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 Pradeep Vatrana cuke DCIT, Vs. C/o M/s K.L.Datta & Co. CA. Circle-2, Vashitha Plaza 2, Mannu Marg, Alwar Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAQPV7801C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri P. P.…

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

…siness profit not capital gain. In the case of CIT vs. PKN Co. Ltd. 60 ITR 65 it was held that purchase with an intention to resale will also, under the changed circumstances, would be capita! gains. It is also held in the case of Saroj Kumar Mazumdar vs. CIT 37 ITR 242 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that purchase with an intention to resale in order to gain profit will be business profit depending on the circumstances of the case tike nature quantity of purchase and nature operation involved. It was also held in the case of Janki Ram Bahadur Ram vs. CIT 57 ITR 21 (SC) that no single fact has any decisive significa…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Pratima Sankhla, Jaipur

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

ITA 605/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 54B

…re operation. As against this, the conduct of assessee show that assessee is an investor. The following cases relied by the A.R. also support the case of assessee. (a) M/s. SKM Construction Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) 2011-TIOL-470 (b) Saroj Kumar Majumdar (SC) (37 ITR 242) (c) Janki Ram Badhurram (SC) (57 ITR 21) (d) Michael A Kallivayalil (Kerala) 102 ITR 202 (e) Sairam (2002) (Madras) 242 ITR 104 On similar facts and circumstances in case of Shri Ashok Sankhala (husband of assessee) in A.Y. 2010-11 (ITA No.877/2011- 12), he has been treated as investor, not being indulged in the business of real estate. There…

Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT

What is Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT

Tulika Kedia, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Gupta C K, Mumbai

Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera, Surat vs. ITO(International Taxation), Surat

Sh. Surender Meena, 36, Pratap Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

Sunita Adukia, Ranchi vs. DCIT Cir-2, Ranchi

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

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

Shivkumar Radheshyam Sharma, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

Manaz Retail P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mohinder Puri, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Arjun Puri, New Delhi

Mahaveer Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

Pradeep Vatrana, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar

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

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Pratima Sankhla, Jaipur