Venkatesh Satyaraj v. DCIT

410 ITR 540High Court2019#17885 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Judgments citing Venkatesh Satyaraj v. DCIT

Shri Ketan Ramniklal Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3216/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Ketan Ramniklal Mehta, Income-Tax Officer, 10, Nishant Bungalows, Part-1, Vs Ward 7(2), Nr. Shyamal Char Rasta, Satellite Ahmedabad Road, Ahmedabad – 380015 Pan : Aevpm 2649 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr DR
Section 148Section 263

…e profit arising from the transactions in shares is to be assessed as business income or capital gain. He has contended that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ramniwas Ramjivan Ketan Ramniklal Mehta Vs. ITO AY : 2010-11 11 Kasat, [2019] 410 ITR 540 (Guj.) as well as in the case of PCIT vs. Bhanuprasad D. Trivedi, [2017] 87 taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) has relied upon the CBDT Circular No.6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 to give relief to the assessee on a similar issue. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned DR, the benefit of impugned order having been passed by the learned CIT(A) on 16.09.2014,…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ld that the treatment whether the capital asset or stock in trade cannot be varied from one year to another year without change in facts in the following decisions:- Venkatesh Satyaraj v. DCIT, 88 taxmann.com 915 (Mum Trib.) Pr.CIT v. Ramniwas Ramjivan Kasat, 410 ITR 540 (Guj) Dr. Jaykumar Chhaganlal Shah v. DCIT, 2016-TIOL-1507-ITAT- AHM Smt. Sujatha Kapadia v. CIT v. JCIT, 55 taxmann.com 474 Madhuraj Foundation, 175 TTJ 25 (Chd. Trib) Shibani S. Bhojwani v. DCIT, 35 taxmann.com 35 (Mum Trib) ACIT v. Harbilas Cold Storage & Food Products, 12 taxmann.com 36 (Lucknow) 73. The ld. AR submitted that the there is no…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ld that the treatment whether the capital asset or stock in trade cannot be varied from one year to another year without change in facts in the following decisions:- Venkatesh Satyaraj v. DCIT, 88 taxmann.com 915 (Mum Trib.) Pr.CIT v. Ramniwas Ramjivan Kasat, 410 ITR 540 (Guj) Dr. Jaykumar Chhaganlal Shah v. DCIT, 2016-TIOL-1507-ITAT- AHM Smt. Sujatha Kapadia v. CIT v. JCIT, 55 taxmann.com 474 Madhuraj Foundation, 175 TTJ 25 (Chd. Trib) Shibani S. Bhojwani v. DCIT, 35 taxmann.com 35 (Mum Trib) ACIT v. Harbilas Cold Storage & Food Products, 12 taxmann.com 36 (Lucknow) 73. The ld. AR submitted that the there is no…

Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

ITA 2191/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 271(1)Section 36

…e number 92 – 94 of the paper book in 2018-TIOL-2515-HC-MUM-IT in case of principal Commissioner of income tax versus Hardik Bharatbhai Patel, covers the issue in favour of the assessee. He also referred to the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in 410 ITR 540 in principle Commissioner of income tax versus Ramniwas Ramjivan Kasat for the proposition. He also referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 378 ITR 28 in Eicher GoodEarth Ltd versus CIT wherein it has been held that interest paid on amount borrowed to subscribe write issue of another company in order to retain control on it…

Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 271(1)Section 36

…e number 92 – 94 of the paper book in 2018-TIOL-2515-HC-MUM-IT in case of principal Commissioner of income tax versus Hardik Bharatbhai Patel, covers the issue in favour of the assessee. He also referred to the decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in 410 ITR 540 in principle Commissioner of income tax versus Ramniwas Ramjivan Kasat for the proposition. He also referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 378 ITR 28 in Eicher GoodEarth Ltd versus CIT wherein it has been held that interest paid on amount borrowed to subscribe write issue of another company in order to retain control on it…

Venkatesh Satyaraj v. DCIT (410 ITR 540) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax