Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax -25 v. Su...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax -25 v. Suresh Kumar Seksaria

High Court 01 Mar 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax -25 v. Suresh Kumar Seksaria
Date of order
01 Mar 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax -25 v. Suresh Kumar Seksaria, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Hence the appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONI.T.X.A.L.1342/2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax -25Vs.Suresh Kumar Seksaria AppellantRespondent Ms.Suchitra Kamble for appellantMr.Jignesh R.Shah with Mr.P.C.Tripathi for respondent P.C. CORAM- J.P.DEVADHAR ,AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ.DATE -1[st] March,2011 .Whether the I.T.A.T.was justified in holding that the assessee was an investor and accordingly directing the Assessing Officer to assess the profits on sale of delivery based shares as long term capital gain is the question raised in this appeal. 2 The Tribunal in paragraph -6 of its order has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee is trading in shares and also making investments for which separate accounts have been maintained. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding of fact that the shares sold in the year in question were acquired in the earlier years in which they have already been accepted as investment . 2 3In this view of the matter the finding recorded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact. No question of law arises. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No costs. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan