Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

104 ITD 427Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#5121 most cited

What is Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The nature of gain arising from the transfer of shares or securities depends on the assessee's intention at the time of acquisition.

23

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

Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. v. DCIT · 104 ITD 427 · 100 TTJ 1132 · intention of assessee · acquisition of shares · transfer of securities · capital asset · capital gains · nature of gain

Also reported as

100 TTJ 1132

Sections most often in play

Section 112(1)Section 115JAASection 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

transactional net margin methodkelvinatordate of transfermost appropriate methodsection 36(1)(iii)disallowance under section 14asection 92casection 92carm's length pricetransfer pricing adjustmentsection 92associated enterprise

Judgments citing Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT (OSD) RG 10(1), Mumbai vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1278/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Years:2008-09

Section 14ASection 43(6)

…ht on record by the assessee to establish that investment in shares was out of own funds and the borrowed funds were entirely utilized for business purposes, thus, no interest can be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. The ratio laid down in Escorts Ltd. vs ACIT 104 ITD 427 (Del.) and Malwa Cotton Spining Mills vs ACIT 89 ITD 65 (Chd.)™ supports the case of the assessee. Likewise with respect to Plchem Hygiene Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, for the ITA No.8489/Mum/2011, M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd. impugned assessment year, no additional investment was made. So far as, Godrej Oil Plantation Ltd. (formerly known…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 152/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Years:2008-09

Section 14ASection 43(6)

…ht on record by the assessee to establish that investment in shares was out of own funds and the borrowed funds were entirely utilized for business purposes, thus, no interest can be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. The ratio laid down in Escorts Ltd. vs ACIT 104 ITD 427 (Del.) and Malwa Cotton Spining Mills vs ACIT 89 ITD 65 (Chd.)™ supports the case of the assessee. Likewise with respect to Plchem Hygiene Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, for the ITA No.8489/Mum/2011, M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd. impugned assessment year, no additional investment was made. So far as, Godrej Oil Plantation Ltd. (formerly known…

E-City Investments & Holdings Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(1) (OSD), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8382/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 E-City Investments & Holdings Dcit, Company Private Limited, Range-8(1)(Osd), बनाम/ 844/4, Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, Opp. M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaace8030F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Mr.J. Saravanan -Dr

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…in later year unless and until the facts are different. For this proposition, reliance was placed upon following decision: i. CIT vs Sridev Enterprises (192 ITR 165)(Kar.) ii. ITO vs J.M.P. Enterprises (101 ITD 324, 336-337) (Asr) iii. Escorts Ltd. vs ACIT (104 ITD 427, 512-513)(Del.) iv. Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills vs ACIT (89 ITD 65, 94- 95)(Chd)(TM) v. CIT vs Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. 209 CTR (P & H) 167 2.1. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri J. Sarvanan, defended the conclusion drawn in assessment order as well as 4 E-City Investment & Holdings Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.8382/Mum/11 impugned order by…