Virani v. CIT

90 ITR 255High Court1973#10171 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Judgments citing Virani v. CIT

BHANUPRASAD MAGANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 7/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…ny movable property like shares and securities, whether the same is in the nature of a capital asset or a stock in trade is essential fact for specific determination. The assessee submitted Jurisdictional High Court Judgment in the case of D S Virani vs. CIT (90 ITR 255) wherein it is held that no single fact or circumstances has decisive significance and it is totality of the relevant factors and circumstances that has to be take into account for the purpose of determining the true nature of the transaction. The A.O. has applied in the present case only the test of motive or intention but incorrectly, in as much…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHANTI EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 884/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.884/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 D.C.I.T., Shanti Exports Pvt. Ltd., Circle-4,(1)(1), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Ahmedabad. Chiripal House, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhir Mehta, A.R

…bunal that even the sales out of the original holdings subsequent to the sales in question in 1968 and 1969 had been treated as realisation of capital asset resulting in capital gains and, hence, it is obvious that unlike Virani in D. S. Virani's case [1_973J 90 ITR 255 (Guj) this particular assessee before us was not a dealer in land. That is a strong circumstance in his favour and even in respect of subsequent sales he was not treated as a dealer in land. As regards the other circumstances to which Mr Patel for the assessee drew our attention they are the facts that the land of Survey No. 335 was an ancestral a…

LATE VITHALDAS KHUSALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 629/AHD/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.629/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1998-99 Late Shri Vithaldas Khushaldas बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Mali, L/H Hasmukhbhai Income Tax, Navsari Circle- Vs. Vithaldas Mali Navsari Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Bazar, Navsari [Pan: Abopm 3924 E] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2019 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena Am: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad, (In Short “The Cit (A)”) All Dated 03.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 1998-99 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Navsari Circle- Navsari (Hereinafter Referred As “The Ao”). 2. Ground No.(I) & Ground No. (Ii) Regarding Reopening Of Assessment & Validity Of Assessment Is Not Pressed Before Us, Hence, Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

…Late Vithal L/h Hasmukhbhai V. Mali v. DCIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 629/AHD/2017/A.Y. 98-99 Page 1 of 7 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-SURAT-BENCH- SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.629/AHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1998-99 Late Shri Vithaldas Khushaldas बनाम Deputy Commissioner of Mali, L/h Hasmukhbhai Income Tax, Navsari Circle- Vs. Vithaldas Mali Navsari Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Bazar, Navsari [PAN: ABOPM 3924 E] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri Hiren R. Ve…

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2127/AHD/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…nd, is not taxable in his case as business income and has to be treated as capital gains. In support of this view, the learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of D. S. Virani v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 255 (Gujarat), wherein head notes reads as under:- Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 16 of 34 'V' and his three brother jointly purchased a non-agricultural land - 'V' was residing in India while his brothers resided outside India and entire transaction of purchase was…

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2125/AHD/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…nd, is not taxable in his case as business income and has to be treated as capital gains. In support of this view, the learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of D. S. Virani v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 255 (Gujarat), wherein head notes reads as under:- Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 16 of 34 'V' and his three brother jointly purchased a non-agricultural land - 'V' was residing in India while his brothers resided outside India and entire transaction of purchase was…

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2123/AHD/2014[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…nd, is not taxable in his case as business income and has to be treated as capital gains. In support of this view, the learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of D. S. Virani v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 255 (Gujarat), wherein head notes reads as under:- Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 16 of 34 'V' and his three brother jointly purchased a non-agricultural land - 'V' was residing in India while his brothers resided outside India and entire transaction of purchase was…

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1637/AHD/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…nd, is not taxable in his case as business income and has to be treated as capital gains. In support of this view, the learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of D. S. Virani v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 255 (Gujarat), wherein head notes reads as under:- Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 16 of 34 'V' and his three brother jointly purchased a non-agricultural land - 'V' was residing in India while his brothers resided outside India and entire transaction of purchase was…

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…on, the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: a) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393 (Mad) b) R. Vasanthi Ram Narayan vs. DCIT (ITA 1802&1803/MDS/2015, order dated 18.12.2015. c) D.S. Virani and Others vs. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 255 (Guj). d) Ashwin Ramesh Mansharamani vs. IT) (2004) 1 SOT 10 (Mumbai). e) Sri. Hiteshkumar Ashok Kumar Vaswani vs. JCIT (2017) Taxcorp (AT) 57096 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). f) Jayanthibhai D. Panchal vs.DCIT (IT(SS)A No.89 to 94/ahd/2010 order dated 04/01/2013. g) Tulla Veerender Vs. Addl. CIT (2013) 36 taxmann.com 545 (Hyderabad –Trib.) I.T.A. Nos.494 -…

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…on, the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: a) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393 (Mad) b) R. Vasanthi Ram Narayan vs. DCIT (ITA 1802&1803/MDS/2015, order dated 18.12.2015. c) D.S. Virani and Others vs. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 255 (Guj). d) Ashwin Ramesh Mansharamani vs. IT) (2004) 1 SOT 10 (Mumbai). e) Sri. Hiteshkumar Ashok Kumar Vaswani vs. JCIT (2017) Taxcorp (AT) 57096 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). f) Jayanthibhai D. Panchal vs.DCIT (IT(SS)A No.89 to 94/ahd/2010 order dated 04/01/2013. g) Tulla Veerender Vs. Addl. CIT (2013) 36 taxmann.com 545 (Hyderabad –Trib.) I.T.A. Nos.494 -…

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 495/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…on, the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: a) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393 (Mad) b) R. Vasanthi Ram Narayan vs. DCIT (ITA 1802&1803/MDS/2015, order dated 18.12.2015. c) D.S. Virani and Others vs. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 255 (Guj). d) Ashwin Ramesh Mansharamani vs. IT) (2004) 1 SOT 10 (Mumbai). e) Sri. Hiteshkumar Ashok Kumar Vaswani vs. JCIT (2017) Taxcorp (AT) 57096 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). f) Jayanthibhai D. Panchal vs.DCIT (IT(SS)A No.89 to 94/ahd/2010 order dated 04/01/2013. g) Tulla Veerender Vs. Addl. CIT (2013) 36 taxmann.com 545 (Hyderabad –Trib.) I.T.A. Nos.494 -…

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 494/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…on, the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: a) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393 (Mad) b) R. Vasanthi Ram Narayan vs. DCIT (ITA 1802&1803/MDS/2015, order dated 18.12.2015. c) D.S. Virani and Others vs. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 255 (Guj). d) Ashwin Ramesh Mansharamani vs. IT) (2004) 1 SOT 10 (Mumbai). e) Sri. Hiteshkumar Ashok Kumar Vaswani vs. JCIT (2017) Taxcorp (AT) 57096 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). f) Jayanthibhai D. Panchal vs.DCIT (IT(SS)A No.89 to 94/ahd/2010 order dated 04/01/2013. g) Tulla Veerender Vs. Addl. CIT (2013) 36 taxmann.com 545 (Hyderabad –Trib.) I.T.A. Nos.494 -…