Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT

37 ITR 242Supreme Court of India1959#3807 most cited

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.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT · 37 ITR 242 · adventure in the nature of trade · indicia of trade · isolated transactions · business income · capital gains · business of the assessee

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 1961Section 2(13) of the Income Tax ActSection 250Section 250 of the Income Tax ActSection 271BSection 44A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

transferpersonindiatotal incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mahesh Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 173/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 271A

…come tax v PKN Co. Limited [1966] 60 ITR 65(SC) " Gustad Dinshaw Irani v Commissioner of Income tax [1957] 31 ITR 92 (Bombay) " Mrs DM Alexander v Commissioner of Income tax [1952] 22 ITR 379 (Madras) " Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v Commissioner of Income tax [1959] 37 ITR 242 (SC) " Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v Commissioner of Income tax [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC) " Commissioner of Income tax v Jagarnath Prasad Chhawchharia 176 ITR 217 (HC-Patna) " Commissioner of Income-tax v Associated Industrial Development Co. (P) Limited (1971) 82 ITR 586 (SC) " Shah-La Investment and Financial Consultants (P) Limited v Deputy Commissioner…

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

…chase 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 purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar vs CIT reported in (1959) 37 ITR 242 (SC) (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram vs CIT reported in (1065) 57 ITR 21 (SC). 5.8.1. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Circular issued on this subject. Keeping in mind, the a…

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

…chase 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 purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar vs CIT reported in (1959) 37 ITR 242 (SC) (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram vs CIT reported in (1065) 57 ITR 21 (SC). 5.8.1. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Circular issued on this subject. Keeping in mind, the 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

…60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT, 57 ITR 21 (SC). 9. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Instruction No.1827 dated 31.8.1989 referred to by the AO in the order of as…

Mr. Chetan Kantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(3), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 637/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)

…60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT, 57 ITR 21 (SC). 12. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Circular referred to by the AO in the order of assessment. Keeping in mind…

DCIT Cir - 6, Kolkata. vs. M/S K.B. Capital Markets Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &
Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

…60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT, 57 ITR 21 (SC). 15. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Circular referred to by the learned DR before us. Keeping in mind, the abov…

Kb Capital Markets (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I, .T Cir - 6, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &
Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

…60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT, 57 ITR 21 (SC). 15. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Circular referred to by the learned DR before us. Keeping in mind, the abov…

DCIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata vs. M/S. Hobb International Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 1383/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1383/Kol/2010 Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niloy Baran Som JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT, 57 ITR 21 (SC). 10. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Instruction No.1827 dated 31.8.1989 referred to by the AO in the order of a…

ITO, Ward - 12(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Manimaya Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 439/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Sallong yaden, Addl.CIT,Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘A’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] Assessment Year : 2005-06 I.T.O., Ward-12(4) , -versus- M/s. Manimaya Holdings Pvt.Ltd Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AACCM0598E) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri Sallong yaden, Addl.CIT,Sr.DR For the Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Date of Hearing : 08.03.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 6.4.2016. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 31.12.2008 of CIT(A) XXXII, Kolkata, relating to AY 2005-06. 2. Ground No.1 raised by the re…

D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S A.K.G Finvest Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1341/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 73

…engaged in purchase and sale of shares in regular course and that too in a bulk. In fact, the main and sole activity of the assessee is in the field of purchase and sale of shares shown as investment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saroj Kumar Majumder (37 ITR 242) held that purchase and sale of shares not in an isolated manner is a strong case of trading activities. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the loss disclosed under the heads 'L T C Loss' for Rs. (-) 3,34,30,136/- and 'STC Loss' for Rs. (-)36,39,94,084/ is treated as business loss. Therefore, the Share Transaction Business i…

I.T.O WD - 44(4), Kolkata vs. Sri Sailesh Jalan, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1880/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sallong Yoden, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Agarwala, FCA
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “A”, KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-44(4), .-versus- Sri Sailesh Jalan Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:ACVPJ2444E) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) For the Appellant : Sallong Yoden, JCIT, Sr.DR For the Respondent : Shri Mahendra Agarwala, FCA Date of Hearing : 16.02.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2016. ORDER Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 23.08.2012 and of CIT(A)-XXX, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2007-08. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenu…