Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (Supreme Court)

CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 21, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (gopal_purohit_shares_stcg_slp.pdf)


Tests to determine whether shares gains assessable as STCG or business profits

The Supreme Court vide order dated 15.11.2010 dismissed the Department’s Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom) where it was held that:

(a) it was open to an assessee to maintain two separate portfolios, one relating to investment and another relating to business of dealing in shares,

(b) that a finding of fact had been arrived at by the Tribunal as regards the two distinct types of transactions namely, those by way of investment and those for the purposes of business,

(c) that there should be uniformity in treatment and consistency when facts and circumstances are identical particularly in the case of the assessee and

(d) that entries in books of account alone are not conclusive in determining the nature of income though they have a bearing.

For more see ARA Trading & Investments Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) and the cases referred to therein

Related Posts:

  • Col. Retd. Madan Gopal Singh Nagi vs. CIT (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Our Army Soldiers, Naval Officials and Fighter Pilots are Day and Nights protecting Our Territorial Borders from Enemy Infiltration and Attacks and even while putting their life to the greatest risk, are keeping all Citizens safe and Secure and making Our life free from all such Dangers, where they don't…
  • In Re: Guidelines For Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During Covid-19 Pandemic (Supreme… Every individual and institution is expected to cooperate in the implementation of measures designed to reduce the transmission of the virus. The scaling down conventional operations within the precincts of courts is a measure in that direction. Access to justice is fundamental to preserve the rule of law in the…
  • Raj Pal Singh vs. CIT (Supreme Court) For chargeability of income-tax, the income ought to have either arrived or accrued. In the matter of acquisition of land under the Act of 1894, taking over of possession before arrival of relevant stage for such taking over may give rise to a potential right in the owner of the…
  • PILCOM vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The obligation to deduct Tax at Source under Section 194E of the Act is not affected by the DTAA and in case the exigibility to tax is disputed by the assesse on whose account the deduction is made, the benefit of DTAA can be pleaded and if the case is…
  • UOI vs. P. D. Sunny (Supreme Court) There shall be ex-parte ad-interim stay of the impugned judgment and order(s) passed in the aforesaid writ petitions and of further proceedings before the High Court(s), in view of the stand taken by the Government of India through learned Solicitor General, before us, that the Government is fully conscious of…
  • Ramnath & Co vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1, when applied to incentive provisions like those for deduction, would also be that the burden lies on the assessee to prove its applicability to his case; and if there be any ambiguity in the deduction…

Related Judgements

  1. JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) 

    The question as to whether the assessee had an option in law to claim partial depreciation in respect of any block of assets is remanded to the High Court to consider in the light of Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 … JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) Read…
  2. Kvaerner John Brown vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Jurisdiction u/s S. 143(1)(a) and 143 (1A) is confined to making “prima facie” adjustments. When there are conflicting judgments on interpretation of Section 80-O, it is not permissible to make “prima facie” adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) and consequently additional tax u/s 143(1A) is not payable.
    Read more ›
  3. Agricultural PMC vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee is not a “local authority” after insertion of the Explanation in Section 10(20) vide Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and is consequently not entitled to the benefit under Section 10 of the 1961 Act.
    Read more ›
  4. B. M. Malani vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Levy of interest is for compensating the revenue from loss suffered by non-deposit of tax by the assessee within the time specified therefor. This principle should also be applied for determining whether any hardship had been caused or not. A genuine hardship means a genuine difficulty. It cannot be…
  5. Guffic Chem P. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Payment received as non-competition fee under a negative covenant was always treated as a capital receipt till AY 2003-04. It is only by s. 28(va) inserted by FA 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable. S. 28(va) is amendatory and not clarificatoryRead more ›
One comment on “CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (Supreme Court)”
  1. ISHA says:
    July 6, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    PLS PROVIDE FULL JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF GOPAL PROHIT

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*