1 Indramani Bai & Another v. Addl.ClT (SC)

200 ITR 594Supreme Court of India1993#5225 most cited

What is 1 Indramani Bai & Another v. Addl.ClT (SC) authority for?

Acquiring land with the intention of selling it after development constitutes a business venture, resulting in profit that is taxable as business income. This is because the activity is undertaken with a view to profit and can only be described as a business venture.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Indramani Bai & Another v. Addl. CIT · business venture · adventure in the nature of trade · taxable as business income · profit from development and sale of land · income-tax act

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 263

Judgments citing 1 Indramani Bai & Another v. Addl.ClT (SC)

ANITA LODHA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT - 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

19. In view of the above findings, this appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be allowed

ITA 46/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 253Section 263

…and with a view to selling it after developing, he carries on an activity resulting in profit and the activity could only be described as business venture. On same point, Learned PCIT also relied upon decision in case Indramani Bai & Another Vs Addl. CIT (SC),200 ITR 594. Learned PCIT went on to observe in the impugned order that the Assessing Officer had failed to apply his mind to the material available on record and also to invoke the relevant provisions of law. 12. On the other hand, Learned AR of the assessee has relied on the decision in Malabar Industries Limited v. CIT, 243 ITR 83 to contend 6 Anita Lod…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT vs. SWASTIK ENTERPRISES, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are allowed

ITA 173/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., Swastik Enterprises, Circle-2(3), R.S. No. 130, F.P. 36, T.P.S. 37, Vs. Surat. Behind Althan Gam, Althan, Surat. Pan No. Aakfm 1069 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

…e Trib) order dated 31/05/2006. 11. At the time of making submissions, the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws;  CIT Vs India Discount Co. (1975) 75 ITR 191 SC, 15 DCIT Vs Swastik Enterprises  Smt. Indiramati Bai & Others Vs ACIT (1983) 200 ITR 594-SC,  Raja J. Rameshwar Rao Vs CIT (1961) 42 ITR 0179 SC,  CIT Vs Suresh Chand Goel (2007) 164 TAXMAN 54 (MP HC) and  Hariom Associates Vs ITO (ITA No. 1516/Pun/2016). 12. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have also gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on the various…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. A.SIVASANKAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 953/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…lared by the assessee as Long Term Capital Gains. The AO disputed the same and held it as adventure in the nature of trade and brought it to taxation as business income. The AO had relied on the following decisions: 1 Indramani Bai & Another Vs. Addl.ClT (SC)200 ITR 594. 2. G .Nenkatasami Naidu & Co Vs CIT 35 ITR 594. 3. Addl. CIT vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah (Kar) 164 1TR 41 & 4. CIT Vs. R.Ramaiah & Others (Kar) 146 ITR 39 5. The AR for the assessee has filed detailed written arguments as per which the AR has relied on the apex court's decisions in G.Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. (107 !TR 716), Rajputtana Textile Ag…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. A.SIVASANKAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 952/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…lared by the assessee as Long Term Capital Gains. The AO disputed the same and held it as adventure in the nature of trade and brought it to taxation as business income. The AO had relied on the following decisions: 1 Indramani Bai & Another Vs. Addl.ClT (SC)200 ITR 594. 2. G .Nenkatasami Naidu & Co Vs CIT 35 ITR 594. 3. Addl. CIT vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah (Kar) 164 1TR 41 & 4. CIT Vs. R.Ramaiah & Others (Kar) 146 ITR 39 5. The AR for the assessee has filed detailed written arguments as per which the AR has relied on the apex court's decisions in G.Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. (107 !TR 716), Rajputtana Textile Ag…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. A.SIVASANKAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 951/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…lared by the assessee as Long Term Capital Gains. The AO disputed the same and held it as adventure in the nature of trade and brought it to taxation as business income. The AO had relied on the following decisions: 1 Indramani Bai & Another Vs. Addl.ClT (SC)200 ITR 594. 2. G .Nenkatasami Naidu & Co Vs CIT 35 ITR 594. 3. Addl. CIT vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah (Kar) 164 1TR 41 & 4. CIT Vs. R.Ramaiah & Others (Kar) 146 ITR 39 5. The AR for the assessee has filed detailed written arguments as per which the AR has relied on the apex court's decisions in G.Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. (107 !TR 716), Rajputtana Textile Ag…

A.SIVASHANKAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 620/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…lared by the assessee as Long Term Capital Gains. The AO disputed the same and held it as adventure in the nature of trade and brought it to taxation as business income. The AO had relied on the following decisions: 1 Indramani Bai & Another Vs. Addl.ClT (SC)200 ITR 594. 2. G .Nenkatasami Naidu & Co Vs CIT 35 ITR 594. 3. Addl. CIT vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah (Kar) 164 1TR 41 & 4. CIT Vs. R.Ramaiah & Others (Kar) 146 ITR 39 5. The AR for the assessee has filed detailed written arguments as per which the AR has relied on the apex court's decisions in G.Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. (107 !TR 716), Rajputtana Textile Ag…

A.SIVASHANKAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 619/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…lared by the assessee as Long Term Capital Gains. The AO disputed the same and held it as adventure in the nature of trade and brought it to taxation as business income. The AO had relied on the following decisions: 1 Indramani Bai & Another Vs. Addl.ClT (SC)200 ITR 594. 2. G .Nenkatasami Naidu & Co Vs CIT 35 ITR 594. 3. Addl. CIT vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah (Kar) 164 1TR 41 & 4. CIT Vs. R.Ramaiah & Others (Kar) 146 ITR 39 5. The AR for the assessee has filed detailed written arguments as per which the AR has relied on the apex court's decisions in G.Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. (107 !TR 716), Rajputtana Textile Ag…

A.SIVASHANKAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 618/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…lared by the assessee as Long Term Capital Gains. The AO disputed the same and held it as adventure in the nature of trade and brought it to taxation as business income. The AO had relied on the following decisions: 1 Indramani Bai & Another Vs. Addl.ClT (SC)200 ITR 594. 2. G .Nenkatasami Naidu & Co Vs CIT 35 ITR 594. 3. Addl. CIT vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah (Kar) 164 1TR 41 & 4. CIT Vs. R.Ramaiah & Others (Kar) 146 ITR 39 5. The AR for the assessee has filed detailed written arguments as per which the AR has relied on the apex court's decisions in G.Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. (107 !TR 716), Rajputtana Textile Ag…

A.SIVASHANKAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 617/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…lared by the assessee as Long Term Capital Gains. The AO disputed the same and held it as adventure in the nature of trade and brought it to taxation as business income. The AO had relied on the following decisions: 1 Indramani Bai & Another Vs. Addl.ClT (SC)200 ITR 594. 2. G .Nenkatasami Naidu & Co Vs CIT 35 ITR 594. 3. Addl. CIT vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah (Kar) 164 1TR 41 & 4. CIT Vs. R.Ramaiah & Others (Kar) 146 ITR 39 5. The AR for the assessee has filed detailed written arguments as per which the AR has relied on the apex court's decisions in G.Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. (107 !TR 716), Rajputtana Textile Ag…

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…character of the transaction, so would his conduct prior to the purchase be relevant if it shows a design and a purpose". He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Indramani Bai Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (1993) 200 ITR 594) wherein it was held that the act of purchasing a piece of land and shortly I.T.A. Nos.494 - 497/Coch/2018 converting them into 4 plots and selling them individually constitute an adventure in nature of trade. In this case on reference the H C had held that the intention of the assessee even when they purchased the land was to resell the same…

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…character of the transaction, so would his conduct prior to the purchase be relevant if it shows a design and a purpose". He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Indramani Bai Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (1993) 200 ITR 594) wherein it was held that the act of purchasing a piece of land and shortly I.T.A. Nos.494 - 497/Coch/2018 converting them into 4 plots and selling them individually constitute an adventure in nature of trade. In this case on reference the H C had held that the intention of the assessee even when they purchased the land was to resell the same…

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 495/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…character of the transaction, so would his conduct prior to the purchase be relevant if it shows a design and a purpose". He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Indramani Bai Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (1993) 200 ITR 594) wherein it was held that the act of purchasing a piece of land and shortly I.T.A. Nos.494 - 497/Coch/2018 converting them into 4 plots and selling them individually constitute an adventure in nature of trade. In this case on reference the H C had held that the intention of the assessee even when they purchased the land was to resell the same…

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 494/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…character of the transaction, so would his conduct prior to the purchase be relevant if it shows a design and a purpose". He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Indramani Bai Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (1993) 200 ITR 594) wherein it was held that the act of purchasing a piece of land and shortly I.T.A. Nos.494 - 497/Coch/2018 converting them into 4 plots and selling them individually constitute an adventure in nature of trade. In this case on reference the H C had held that the intention of the assessee even when they purchased the land was to resell the same…

DCIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. NOSHIR D. TALATI, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2306/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. C.I.T – 8(3)(1) V. Noshir D. Talati Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, 96-D, Villa Modern, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Worli Sea Face, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 018 Pan No: Aaapt 6890 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.295/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2306/Mum/2016 (A.Y: 2008-09)] Noshir D. Talati V. Dy. C.I.T – 8(3)(1) 96-D, Villa Modern, Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Worli Sea Face, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 Pan No: Aaapt 6890 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…oshir D. Talati sold for ₹.2.58 Crores opting for indexation and long term capital gain of ₹.1,10,78,586/- being half share was offered for taxation. The Assessing Officer referring to the decision of Supreme court in the case Indramani Bai & another v. ACIT [200 ITR 594] and G Venkatswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [35 ITR 594], he came to the conclusion that sale of land after plotting is a business venture and therefore the sale proceeds should have been assessed as business income instead of capital gains and therefore he was of the view that there is loss of revenue which escaped assessment. Accordingly notice u/s 1…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI NARENDRA J.BHIMANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 411/RJT/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)

…f investment for personal use, possession or enjoyment. Sale of land after plotting has been held as a business venture in following cases by various courts: G. Venkataswamy Naidu & co. vs CIT (SC) (1959) (35 ITR 594) Indrarnani Bai & others vs Addl. CIT (SC) 200 ITR 594 2] Just as the conduct of the purchaser subsequent to the purchase of a commodity improving or converting it so as to make it more readily resaleable is a relevant factor in determining the character of the transaction, so would his conduct prior to the purchase be relevant if it shows a design and a purpose. In the present case before sale of la…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 173/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 271A

…iming the same to be Short Term Capital Gain for taking the benefit of provisions of Section 111A of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " G. Venkataswami Naidu and Co. Vs CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) " Indramani Bai (Smt.) Vs Addl. CIT 200 ITR 594 (SC) " CIT Vs V. S. P. Balasubramaniam 250 ITR 127 (Mad.) " Immortal Financial Services P. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 4094/Mum/2010 order dated 20.10.2010 " Smt. Rekha Khandelwal Vs ACIT in ITA No. 785/Mum/2009 order dated 17.03.2010 6 Mahesh Kumar " DCIT-5(2) Vs M/s Pentagon Builders Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 6045/Mum/2009 order dated 22.12.2010 " Sadh…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 94/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: MD.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ows: (i) If, land is purchased with the objective of dividing the same into plots and thereafter selling at a profit, the transaction of purchase and sale would come within the ambit of adventure in the nature of trade. Smt. Indramani Bai & Anr. vs. Addl. CIT 200 ITR 594 (SC) (ii) "the question whether the transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade must be decided on a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances which are proved in the particular case. The answer to the question does not depend upon the application of any abstract rule, principle or formula but must depend upon the total imp…

DCIT, TAMBARAM vs. R.VSANTHI RAM NARAYAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and cross- objections of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1806/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015 & C.O. Nos.114 & 115/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015 & C.O. Nos.114 & 115/Mds/2015 (in I.T.A. Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s Shirdi Estates, Income Tax, v. New No.32, Old No.28, Non Corporate Circle – 22, Ramachandra Road, No.7, Ramakrishna Street, Nehru Nagar, Chromepet, West Tambaram,…

DCIT, TAMBARAM vs. R.VSANTHI RAM NARAYAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and cross- objections of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1805/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015 & C.O. Nos.114 & 115/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015 & C.O. Nos.114 & 115/Mds/2015 (in I.T.A. Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s Shirdi Estates, Income Tax, v. New No.32, Old No.28, Non Corporate Circle – 22, Ramachandra Road, No.7, Ramakrishna Street, Nehru Nagar, Chromepet, West Tambaram,…

DCIT, TAMBARAM vs. R.VASANTHI RAM NARAYAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and cross- objections of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1804/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015 & C.O. Nos.114 & 115/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015 & C.O. Nos.114 & 115/Mds/2015 (in I.T.A. Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s Shirdi Estates, Income Tax, v. New No.32, Old No.28, Non Corporate Circle – 22, Ramachandra Road, No.7, Ramakrishna Street, Nehru Nagar, Chromepet, West Tambaram,…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

1 Indramani Bai & Another v. Addl.ClT (SC) (200 ITR 594) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax