Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Abdul Gani Haji Habib And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 April, 1968

V.Prabhakar Ram, Chennai vs Department Of Income Tax on 23 May, 2012

On the contrary, the judgement relied on by the D.R. in the case of Abdul Gani Haji Abib Vs. CIT (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Over the period of time, scope of definitions have enlarged to include certain terms which were not earlier part of the definitions. In the light of the above judgements, we are of the considered opinion that loss suffered by the assessee during future & option transactions is not a speculative loss. Thus, the same can be set off against short term capital gains by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. We, do not find any infirmity in the 12 ITA Nos.1286 & 1287/Mds/2011 impugned order of the CIT(A). We, therefore, uphold the same and dismiss both the appeals of the Revenue being devoid of any merit.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Bank Of Patiala vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 August, 2005

6. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, contended that there was a scam at the relevant point of time of buying and selling the securities without handing over the possession of the scripts/units. The assessee had itself disclosed the capital gain in the return of income filed originally. The assessee had purchased 2 crore units of US 64 from its subsidiary bank without taking the delivery of the units as such. According to the learned Departmental Representative, now-a-days it is not possible to enter in such type of transactions i.e., purchase and sale without the delivery of shares/scripts. According to the learned Departmental Representative, the decisions cited on behalf of the assessee are distinguishable on facts. Replying to the contention on behalf of the assessee relating to applicability of doctrine of relating back, the learned Departmental Representative contended that the facts in cited cases are different and inapplicable to the facts of this case. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Abdul Gani Haji Habib and Ors. v. CIT in support of the contention that if the transaction was not a short-term capital gain, it was permissible to be taken as speculative profits. The learned Departmental Representative contended that the CIT(A) has all the powers co-terminus with the AO. It was, therefore, pleaded that appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gourepore Co. Ltd. on 17 November, 1980

15. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Abdul Gam Haji Habib v. CIT , where the Division Bench held that the transactions were settled by payment of difference. Here, the transactions entered into, were not settlement by payment of any difference. The Division Bench further held that the proviso to Section 24 did not contemplate that the speculative transactions should form a separate unit. We are not concerned with this aspect of this argument.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 2 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Ludhiana vs Addl. Cit, Ludhiana on 22 July, 2022

(i) Juvvi Subbaramaiah & Co. v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 742 (AP), (ii) Hoosen Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1964) ITR 171 (Cal) (iii) Abdul Gani Haji Habib v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 6 (Cal) , (iv) CIT v. Ratanlal Mohanlal (1972) 86 ITR 200 (All) , (v) P.L. KN. Meenakshi Achi v. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 375 (Mad) and (vi) A. Mukhukumara Pillai v. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 557 (Mad) . (vii) CITv. Ram Chandra Gupta & Co. (1968) 69 ITR 254 (Cal)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 111 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

M.R. Dhawan & Co. vs Comissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 May, 1978

(3); Abdul Gani Haii Habib and others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ratan Lal Mohan Lal (1972) 86 Itr 200(AU)(5) ; P.L.KN. Meenakshi Achi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1974) 96 Itr 375 (Mad) (6) ; A. Muthukumara Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1974) 96 Itr 557 (Mad) (7). Indeed there is no controversy before us regarding this principle.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 8 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 October, 2004

97. Fifthly, it was submitted that the proceeding under the excise laws merely has a persuasive value and could not have been held as conclusive of the proposition that there had been overstatement of consumption by the assessee, Reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Abdulla Gani v. Asstt. CIT (1992) 43 ITD 180 (Bom).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 90 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Talakshi Lalji And Co. vs Income-Tax Officer on 25 January, 1991

4. Mr. M.S. Kaushik, Sr. D.R., on the other hand, submitted that in the instant case there was no evidence to prove that actual delivery or transfer of the commodity had ever been effected either directly or constructively in favour of the assessee. Relying on the language of Section 43(5) of the Act and the decisions in the cases of Abdul Gani Haji Habib v. CIT [1969] 7 ITR 6(Cal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next