How many judgments cite Slocum Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite Slocum Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (41 ITR 534), spanning 2015 to 2023.

Slocum Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

41 ITR 534Supreme Court of India1961#9769 most cited

What is Slocum Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

When determining whether the intention of availing loans was for share purchase or other purposes, the dominant intention must be discovered from various angles, including expenditure, holding period, volume and frequency of transactions, source of funds, and maintenance of separate accounts.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Slocum Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT · Ram Narain Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · dominant intention · loan for share purchase · business income vs capital gains · borrowed funds · expenditure · holding period · separate accounts

Judgments citing Slocum Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

ACIT, Circle- 26(2), Delhi vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7103/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…1 .2015 (Delhi High Court): ii) CIT vs. Ashok Wadia – 2014-TIOL-518-H.C-Del-IT; iii) Bengal & Assam Investors Ltd. vs. CIT – 2002 – TIOL-705- S.C-IT. iv) Slocum Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT – 2006- TIOL-300- ITAT-Delhi; v) Ram Narain Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – 41 ITR 534 (S.C); vi) Karnataka State Ind. Investment & Dev. Corpn. Ltd. vs. DCIT – 59 ITD 643 (Bang,.); vii) CIT vs. Gopal Purohit – 2010-TIOL-129-S.CMUM-IT; viii) CIT vs . Devasan Investment P. Ltd. - 365 ITR 452 (Del.); 14. Considering the above submission, we find that in its recent decision, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case o f…

M/S. Indi Stock Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata- II

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and

ITA/49/2009HC Calcutta30 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…ve a single legal test or formula which could be applied in determining whether a transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade or not. The answer to 2 (2022) 287 Taxman 20 (Cal) 3 (1961) 41 ITR 534 (SC) 4 (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) ITA NO. 49 OF 2009 REPORTABLE Page 7 of 11 the question must necessarily depend in each case on the total impression and effect of all relevant factors and circum…

M/S. Gayan Traders Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA/48/2009HC Calcutta30 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…and fact and the legal effect of the facts formed by the tribunal on which the assessee could be treated as a dealer or as investor was a question of law. In 9 (2022) 287 Taxman 20 (Cal) 10 (1961) 41 ITR 534 (SC) ITA NO. 48 OF 2009 REPORTABLE Page 12 of 19 Janaki Ram Bahadur Ram Versus Commissioner of Income Tax 11 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the profit motive in entering the transact…

M/S Unicorn Agro Tech Limited, Secunderabad vs. The Asst. Commisisoner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITTA/48/2009HC Telangana16 Mar 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 143(3)Section 260A

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv

Section 143Section 4

…ent in shares to acquire controlling stakes is a capital investment. He relied up on 368 ITR 1 (Bom) Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI, 311 CTR 344 (Del) Nestle SA vs. ACIT, CBDT Instruction No. 2 of 2015 dated 29.1.2015 in [2015] 274 CTR (St) 65 , 41 ITR 534 (SC) Ram Narain& Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 6.3 Under the commercial world, the controlling stake in a company is always attached with the shareholding and if any shares enjoying controlling stakes are sold, the same would fetch more price over and above the market value. Selling of shares at a price more than the market value or the purchasing of sh…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1893/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudharydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1893/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax, Circle-26(1), New Delhi-110002 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv0132B Assessee By : Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2020

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A

….1.2015 (Delhi High Court): ii) CIT vs. Ashok Wadia – 2014-TIOL-518-H.C-Del-IT; iii) Bengal & Assam Investors Ltd. vs. CIT – 2002 – TIOL-705- S.C-IT. iv) Slocum Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT – 2006- TIOL-300- ITAT-Delhi; v) Ram Narain Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – 41 ITR 534 (S.C); vi) Karnataka State Ind. Investment & Dev. Corpn. Ltd. vs. DCIT – 59 ITD 643 (Bang,.); vii) CIT vs. Gopal Purohit – 2010-TIOL-129-S.C- MUM-IT; viii) CIT vs. Devasan Investment P. Ltd. - 365 ITR 452 (Del.); 14. Considering the above submission, we find that in its recent decision, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case o…

Canara Securities Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2321/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 Canara Securities Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hydereabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan – Aaacc8283G Hyderabad. Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Ramkishore Jhawar Revenue By: Shri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ramkishore JhawarFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…they were actually sold with the purpose of earning profit, so that the transactions amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade. Learned counsel also referred to the decision of this court in Ramnarain Sons (Pr.) Ltd v, Commissioner of Income-tax [I961} 41 ITR 534 to urge that the principal consideration in determining whether income from sale of shares is revenue income or capital gain is to find out what was the purpose of purchase of those shares, and, if the purpose was investment, the fact that, in varying the investment, the sale of those shares resulted in a profit will not make that profit revenue 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

….1.2016 (Kolkata Tribunal) DCIT vs The Diamond Co. LTd in iTA No. 16258/Kol/2010 for Asst Year 2007-08 dated 29.11.2011 (Kolkata Tribunal) Vesta Investments & Trading Co.(P) Ltd vs CIT reported in 70 ITD 200 (CHD) Ramnarain Sons (Pr) Ltd vs CIT reported in 41 ITR 534 (SC) ACIT vs Kethan Kumar A Shah reported in 242 ITR 83 (Ker) Motilal Oswal vs Addl CIT reported in 8 SOT 771 (Bom) CIT vs N.S.S.Investments P Ltd reported in 277 ITR 149 (Mad) Janak S Rangwalla vs ACIT reported in 11 SOT 627 (Mum) CIT vs Gopal Purohit reported in 228 CTR 582 (Bom) CIT vs Merlin Holding (P) Ltd reported in 375 ITR 118 (Cal)…

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2863/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri MP Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Chandra Sharma, CIT- DR

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

….2015 (Delhi High Court): ii) CIT vs. Ashok Wadia – 2014-TIOL-518-H.C-Del-IT; iii) Bengal & Assam Investors Ltd. vs. CIT – 2002 – TIOL-705- S.C-IT. iv) Slocum Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT – 2006-TIOL-300- ITAT-Delhi; v ) Ram Narain Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – 41 ITR 534 (S.C); vi) Karnataka State Ind. Investment & Dev. Corpn. Ltd. vs. DCIT – 59 ITD 643 (Bang,.); vii) CIT vs. Gopal Purohit – 2010-TIOL-129-S.C-MUM-IT; viii) CIT vs. Devasan Investment P. Ltd. - 365 ITR 452 (Del.); 14. Considering the above submission, we find that in its recent decision, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case…

Sanjeev Mittal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above

ITA/520/2014HC Delhi02 Feb 2015

…and secured loans by banks upto ₹39.75 lakhs as on that date. Consequently, the CIT(Appeals) concluded that loans against securities were used for multifarious purposes. In these circumstances, applying the ratio in Ramnarain Sons (P.)Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 534, the dominant intention of availing the loans was not for the purpose of share purchase. 5. Thus applying the well-settled principle that the intention of the assessee is to be discovered from various angles such as the expenditure, length of holding, volume, and frequency of share sale and purchase transaction, whether the shares were acq…