Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.52 seconds)
Second Leasing Private Ltd., New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 4 June, 2018 cites

Vesta Investment And Trading Co. (P) ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 August, 2006

Further, the judgment in the case of Vesta Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 70 ITD 200 (Chd.) also support the case of the assessee wherein it has been held that although res judicata is not 12 applicable to income tax proceeding however, for the sake of consistency, the earlier view taken should not be disturbed unless there is a change in facts. In the present case, the assessee all along has been making investment and accounting for the same as investments. This stand has been accepted in the past and there is no reason to differ with the same in the current year. The accounting treatment given in the current year being the same as in the earlier years, the AO was not justified in altering the same.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Girish Mohan Ganeriwala on 22 October, 2002

The aforesaid view has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Girish Mohan Ganeriwala (2003) ITR 417 whereby it was held that profit from sale of shares is assessable as capital gain more so, when such profits were assessed as capital gain in earlier years.The issue whether the assessee is a trader or an investor is to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each of the case. When the assessee having made investment chooses to rely the same and obtain a higher price of it then what it originally acquired it, the enhanced price received is a realization of investment and hence the same is to be treated as capital gain.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 21 - V Singh - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Avinash Chander on 2 March, 2007

As against this, the judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee are directly on the issue in the case of CIT vs. Avinash 362 ITR 441 (Delhi) the Delhi High Court has relied upon the Board Circular to hold that transaction is in the nature of investment. In the present case, not only the earlier circular support the case of the assessee but also the later on circular issued by the CBDT no. 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 clearly supports the case of the assessee in respect of the long term capital gain.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Samdaria vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 11 August, 2014

In the case of Manoj Kumar Samdaria Vs. CIT [2014] 45 Taxmann.com 394 (Delhi), the facts were that the assessee has given funds to a broker who traded the shares on behalf of the assessee on day to day basis and the dividend received was a meagre amount. Thus, this was a case where there was day to day trading by a broker on behalf of the assessee. Thus, this case law does not support the case of the revenue.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Jawahar B. Purohit, Mumbai vs Asst Cit Cen Cir 22Xc, Mumbai on 20 September, 2017

As regards the reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit 336 ITR 287 (Bomb) by the Ld. DR. we have gone through the same and we find that this judgment, in fact, support the case of 11 the assessee. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has clearly held that delivery based transaction should be treated as those in the nature of investment and profit received there from should be treated as capital gain. In the present case, all the transactions are delivery based and hence by applying the above judgment, the income arising from such investment is to be treated as capital gain.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 35 - Cited by 132 - Full Document

Dalhousie Investment Trust Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 22 November, 1967

As regards the judgment in the case of Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 66 ITR 486 (SC) relied upon by the Ld. DR, the same will also not supports the case of the Revenue as this was a case where the assessee was making investment in the shares of a company M and its managed companies. Since it was a controlled transaction as contended by the assessee itself, it was held that the objective was to earn a profit on sale purchase and not with the object of investment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 104 - V Bhargava - Full Document
1