help neededddd.....

Aditya Maheshwari (CA in Practice) (35867 Points)
Replied 11 February 2010

This link could help

https://www.itatindia.com/itatindia/home2.aspx

C.Balaji (Learner) (1867 Points)
Replied 11 February 2010

Mr.Aditya sir....

Can we get all case laws in this site??? i've tried it but could not get what i want???

Please tell how to search case laws with & without citation....

santhosh (CA) (636 Points)
Replied 11 February 2010

Hi

Create a free Trial account with https://www.taxmann.com/ and access their database for good case laws.

CA Ankit Totla (Practicing Chartered Accountant) (469 Points)
Replied 11 February 2010

ty all..

Prasad R (CA Final) (2128 Points)
Replied 12 February 2010

You can also search in

indiankanoon.org

i personally found it good u can get case laws on any law prevailing in India it's a search engine

Cheers

Prasad R

CA Ankit Totla (Practicing Chartered Accountant) (469 Points)
Replied 12 February 2010

Originally posted by : Prasad R
	You can also search in indiankanoon.org i personally found it good u can get case laws on any law prevailing in India it's a search engine Cheers Prasad R

prasad,

the site is good... but i need the judgement for the case of CIT Vs GOPAL PUROHIT (BOMBAY HIGH COURT)
a new judgement was passed sumtime in december or january.. but i dont juss seem to find it out there... plz help..!!

Ameet (L) (1678 Points)
Replied 12 February 2010

You can get the case law directly searching in google. If you have taxmaan CD, then u can easily do it. If you don't have that u just mentioned case law over here i will attach here but mention the whole name of case law & case law no. & year

Aditya Maheshwari (CA in Practice) (35867 Points)
Replied 12 February 2010

The said Case attached.

Attached File : 2 gopal purohit shares investment dealer.pdf downloaded: 260 times

Ameet (L) (1678 Points)
Replied 12 February 2010

CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (Bombay High Court)

(133.8 KiB, 725 DLs)

Download: gopal_purohit_shares_investment_dealer.pdf

Shares activity treated as investment in earlier years cannot be treated as business in subsequent years if facts are the same

The assessee was engaged in two different activities of sale and purchase of shares. The first set of transactions involved investment in shares in which the assessee took delivery of the shares. The second set of transactions involved dealing in shares for business purposes. The assessee was accordingly an investor as well as a dealer. The income from investment activity was offered as capital gains while the income from dealing activity was offered as business income. This position was accepted by the AO in the earlier years. In AY 2005-06, the AO took a different view and held that even the shares held on investment account had to be assessed as business income. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal (see 122 TTJ (Mum) 87). On appeal by the Revenue, HELD dismissing the appeal:

(a) The Tribunal has correctly applied the principle of law in accepting the position that it is open to an assessee to maintain two separate portfolios, one relating to investment in shares and another relating to business activities involving dealing in shares. Delivery based transactions were rightly treated as being in the nature of investment transactions giving rise to capital gains.

(b) The Tribunal correctly accepted the position that though the principle of res judicata is not attracted, there ought to be uniformity in treatment and consistency when the facts and circumstances are identical. The Tribunal has noted that the assessee has followed a consistent practice in regard to the nature of the activities, the manner of keeping records and the presentation of shares as investment at the end of the year in all the years and there is no justification for a different view being taken by the AO.

(c) The Tribunal applied the correct principle in holding that while entries in the books of account alone are not conclusive in determining the nature of income, it does have a bearing.

Aditya Maheshwari (CA in Practice) (35867 Points)
Replied 12 February 2010

Or facts of the case:

CIt v/s Gopal Purohit

Shares activity treated as investment in earlier years cannot be treated as business in subsequent years if facts are the same

The assessee was engaged in two different activities of sale and purchase of shares. The first set of transactions involved investment in shares in which the assessee took delivery of the shares. The second set of transactions involved dealing in shares for business purposes. The assessee was accordingly an investor as well as a dealer. The income from investment activity was offered as capital gains while the income from dealing activity was offered as business income. This position was accepted by the AO in the earlier years. In AY 2005-06, the AO took a different view and held that even the shares held on investment account had to be assessed as business income. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal (see 122 TTJ (Mum) 87). On appeal by the Revenue, HELD dismissing the appeal:

(a) The Tribunal has correctly applied the principle of law in accepting the position that it is open to an assessee to maintain two separate portfolios, one relating to investment in shares and another relating to business activities involving dealing in shares. Delivery based transactions were rightly treated as being in the nature of investment transactions giving rise to capital gains.

(b) The Tribunal correctly accepted the position that though the principle of res judicata is not attracted, there ought to be uniformity in treatment and consistency when the facts and circumstances are identical. The Tribunal has noted that the assessee has followed a consistent practice in regard to the nature of the activities, the manner of keeping records and the presentation of shares as investment at the end of the year in all the years and there is no justification for a different view being taken by the AO.

(c) The Tribunal applied the correct principle in holding that while entries in the books of account alone are not conclusive in determining the nature of income, it does have a bearing.