The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur v. Shri Rajendra Seth (Huf), Nagpur
High Court
28 Oct 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur v. Shri Rajendra Seth (Huf), Nagpur
Date of order
28 Oct 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur v. Shri Rajendra Seth (Huf), Nagpur, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The question was, whether the shares of Amluckie Investment Ltd. were held by the assessee as investment or stock in trade.
Decision: Accordingly, the Income Tax Appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.84 OF 2010
(The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur ..vs.. Shri Rajendra Seth (HUF), Nagpur)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant,Shri N.S. Bhattad, Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM:- J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.DATED :- 28th OCTOBER, 2010
The respondent-assessee carrying on the business of dealing in shares, had claimed to have purchased 12000 shares of Amluckie Investment Ltd. as investment and claimed that the gains arising on sale of those shares as long term capital gains. The question was, whether the shares of Amluckie Investment Ltd. were held by the assessee as investment or stock in trade. The Tribunal on the basis of the material on record held that the shares were purchased by the assessee as investment and the gains arising on sale of those shares were liable to be taxed as capital gains. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law. Accordingly, the Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
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.