V- Amirtham Ammal v. Commissioner, of IncomeTax on 13 February

74 ITR 739High Court#25581 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing V- Amirtham Ammal v. Commissioner, of IncomeTax on 13 February

Hinduja Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range -7(1)(2) (Earlier DCIT 6(1)), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed and order of Ld

ITA 7154/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalhinduja Finance Ltd. 171, Hinduja House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aagca0533R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Range-7(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ruturaj Gurjar Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/05/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 05.09.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010- 11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming: I) The Disallowance Made U/S.14A Of The Income Tax Act At Rs.7, 06,985/- As Against Disallowance Of Rs.2, 52,536/- As Computed By The Appellant. The Disallowance Made Of Rs.4, 54,449/- May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 14A

…ation of the assessee. Thus while computing the profit of the share trading the loss incurred through speculation activity on 29 03.2010 is not allowed to set off with the business income derived from the share trading. In the case of V Amirtham Ammal Vs. CIT 74 ITR 739, Hon'ble High Court, Madras held that the purchase and sale of share of private company within a short period amounts to adventure in the nature of trade even if such shares are shown as investment m the books of account. It is important to note that Circular No. 4 of 2007 dated 15.06.2007 has stated that the substantial nature of transaction, the…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Rahul Premnath Bhatia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1319/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Asst. Cit 19(3) Vs. Shri Rahul Premnath Bhatia Matru Mandir, 9, Ashiana Building 2Nd Floor, R.No.206 5, Altamount Road Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 026 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan/Gir No. Aadpb0626L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…ersion, of an. investment in a capital asset or revenue derived out of a transaction amounting to ''an adventure in the nature of trade, is always a mixed question of law and fact a• held in V- Amirtham Ammal vs Commissioner, of IncomeTax on 13 February, 1969 74 ITR 739 (Mad.)- In Sarojini Rajah v. Commissioner of Income- tax, reference was made to the considerations that bear upon the identification of badges. of trade to wit the subject-matter of the realisation, the length of the period of ownership, the frequency of a number of similar transactions by the same person, supplementary work on or in connection wi…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Arvind Rajkishore Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, assessment framed on the basis of such invalid and in appropriate reasons is also quashed”

ITA 7137/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s. S.P. Balasubramaniam in 250 ITR 0127.  The Hon. Andra Pradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Raja Dhanraj Girji in 079 ITR 0563.  The Supreme Court of India in Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh Vs. CIT in 77 ITR 253.  Madras High Court in Amirtham Ammal Vs. CIT 74 ITR 739.  The Hon. Bombay High Court in Rajputana Textile (Agencies) Ltd, Vs. CIT, 24 ITR 46.Hon. Allahabad High Court in ITO Vs. Rani Ratnesh Kumarib, 123 ITR 343. It is to be mentioned here that mere entries in the books of account owing some shares as “stock-in-trade” and some shares as “investment” are not conclusive proof to decide the real nature o…

V- Amirtham Ammal v. Commissioner, of IncomeTax on 13 February (74 ITR 739) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax