Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd, 100 ITR 706, Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. CIT

24 ITR 415Supreme Court of India1953#20123 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd, 100 ITR 706, Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. CIT

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

…assessee to on income on such investments made in the course of business returning the income by way of option price, as business income. He further placed reliance on the decision of honourable Supreme Court in case of Sardar Indersingh & Sons Ltd versus CIT 24 ITR 415. 30. With respect to the intention to sale shares he stated that assessee has expressed its intention in the joint-venture agreement to sale its 74% Page 44 of 155 stakes to CUIH on first possible opportunity as and when government policy on foreign direct investment in insurance changes. Such ancient intention was expressed right on the date of…

ANITA KUMARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 15(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed pro-

ITA 3163/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Respondent: Ms. Vijaya Prabha, IRS, JCIT

Section 14Section 14A

…the nature of business. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd, 100 ITR 706, Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 68 ITR 486 and Sardar Indra Singh & Sons Ltd vs. CIT, 24 ITR 415. Now before us, ld. Authorised Representative strongly 6. assailing the orders of the lower authorities submitted that assessee had invested in the equity shares of various companies about five to six years back. According to him, the only sales effected by her during the relevant previous year was of shares in M/s.Planet Online Private Limited…

MAHALAXMI INNOVATIVE SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light our aforesaid observations

ITA 4856/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4856/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mahalaxmi Innovative Services Ltd. Dcit Cir 2(2) बिधम/ 1004, 10Th Floor, Maker Chambers-V, Mumbai Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai, स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm9810C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ttention was invited to instruction No. 1827 dated 31.8.1989. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: i) G. Venkata Swami Naidu & co. Vs. CIT 35 ITR 594 (SC) ii) H. Mohammad & Co. Vs. CIT 107 ITR 637 (Guj.) iii) Sarder Indra Singh & sons Ltd. Vs. CIT 24 ITR 415 (SC) iv) SBH. Vs.CIT 151 ITR 703 iv) Karam Chand Thapar and brothers (P) Ltd Vs. CIT 83 ITR 899 (SC) P a g e | 10 j) That without prejudice, it was submitted that under the present scheme of the Act providing for concessional tax treatment to Short Term capital Gains under Section 111A, the principles/criteria culled out from judicial decisions…

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S TELESTAR INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1375/BANG/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 1997-98

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgeincome-Tax Officer, Ward 12(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Telestar Investments Pvt. Ltd. No.314, Raheja Arcade, Koramangala, Bangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaact5746M

For Appellant: Shri P. Dhivahar, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: None

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ontention, has proceeded to make the disallowance by referring to the following decisions: i. Michael A.Kallivayalil vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 2002, ii. G.Venkata Swami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 and iii. Sarder Indra Singh & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 415 We find that the AO has not given any reasons for not accepting the assessee’s contention and also as to how these decisions are applicable to the facts of the case before him. Therefore, in our opinion, the CIT(A) has rightly observed that the assessee’s statement that the shares which were sold were not acquired out M/s Telestar Investments Pvt…