107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd.

107 ITR 236High Court1977#12003 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing 107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd.

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…ara Estates and Agencies, Bangalore in ITA No.553/Bang/2010 – Dated 28- 10- 2010. (v) CIT v. M/s. Rungta Properties Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 234 (Calcutta) (vi) CIT v. Kasturi Estates Pvt. Ltd., 62 ITR 578 (Mad) (vii) CIT vs MLM Mahalingam Chettiar (1977) 107 ITR 236 (Mad) (viii) CIT vs Suresh Chand Goyal (2008) 298 ITR 277 (MP) (ix) Income Tax officer v. Sitaram Chamaria (2006) 6 SOT 594 (Mumbai-Trib.) 2.28 The Ld. A.R. submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that in order to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the learned Pr. CIT shall ascertain from the records tha…

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…ara Estates and Agencies, Bangalore in ITA No.553/Bang/2010 – Dated 28- 10- 2010. (v) CIT v. M/s. Rungta Properties Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 234 (Calcutta) (vi) CIT v. Kasturi Estates Pvt. Ltd., 62 ITR 578 (Mad) (vii) CIT vs MLM Mahalingam Chettiar (1977) 107 ITR 236 (Mad) (viii) CIT vs Suresh Chand Goyal (2008) 298 ITR 277 (MP) (ix) Income Tax officer v. Sitaram Chamaria (2006) 6 SOT 594 (Mumbai-Trib.) 2.28 The Ld. A.R. submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that in order to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the learned Pr. CIT shall ascertain from the records tha…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mohinder Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2310/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…ion that the surplus from sale of the land did not result from any trade or business in land carried on by the assessee or from any transaction which may properly be described as an adventure in the nature of trade. (viii) In CIT Vs. MLM. Mahalingam Chettiar 107 ITR 236 Madras, on almost identical facts, the decision in Kasturi Estates Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was followed. (ix) Vesta Investments & Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 70 ITR 200 (Chd) Kind attention is invited to para 5 of the order where the Hon’ble Bench has referred to the guidelines for deciding the issue whether the profit is by way of capital gain…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Arjun Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2309/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…ion that the surplus from sale of the land did not result from any trade or business in land carried on by the assessee or from any transaction which may properly be described as an adventure in the nature of trade. (viii) In CIT Vs. MLM. Mahalingam Chettiar 107 ITR 236 Madras, on almost identical facts, the decision in Kasturi Estates Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was followed. (ix) Vesta Investments & Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 70 ITR 200 (Chd) Kind attention is invited to para 5 of the order where the Hon’ble Bench has referred to the guidelines for deciding the issue whether the profit is by way of capital gain…

Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Amrit Corp Ltd., Ghaziabad

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5337/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…fetch higher price, including seeking relevant permissions, would not mean that the gain realized was business income: Deep Chandra and Co. v. CIT : 107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd: 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) CIT vs. MLM Mahalingam Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal: 298 ITR 277 (MP) Kaur Singh vs. CIT: 144 ITR 756(P&H) Asha Housing Enterprises vs. DCIT: 127 ITD 94 (Bang.) 3.013 Our attention was also invited to the following decisions wherein it has been held that to determine the nature of an asset, one must look a…

Amrit Corp Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4579/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…fetch higher price, including seeking relevant permissions, would not mean that the gain realized was business income: Deep Chandra and Co. v. CIT : 107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd: 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) CIT vs. MLM Mahalingam Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal: 298 ITR 277 (MP) Kaur Singh vs. CIT: 144 ITR 756(P&H) Asha Housing Enterprises vs. DCIT: 127 ITD 94 (Bang.) 3.013 Our attention was also invited to the following decisions wherein it has been held that to determine the nature of an asset, one must look a…

Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S Amrit Corp Ltd., Ghaziabad

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2163/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…fetch higher price, including seeking relevant permissions, would not mean that the gain realized was business income: Deep Chandra and Co. v. CIT : 107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd: 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) CIT vs. MLM Mahalingam Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal: 298 ITR 277 (MP) Kaur Singh vs. CIT: 144 ITR 756(P&H) Asha Housing Enterprises vs. DCIT: 127 ITD 94 (Bang.) 3.013 Our attention was also invited to the following decisions wherein it has been held that to determine the nature of an asset, one must look a…

Amrit Corp Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1789/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…fetch higher price, including seeking relevant permissions, would not mean that the gain realized was business income: Deep Chandra and Co. v. CIT : 107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd: 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) CIT vs. MLM Mahalingam Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal: 298 ITR 277 (MP) Kaur Singh vs. CIT: 144 ITR 756(P&H) Asha Housing Enterprises vs. DCIT: 127 ITD 94 (Bang.) 3.013 Our attention was also invited to the following decisions wherein it has been held that to determine the nature of an asset, one must look a…

107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. (107 ITR 236) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax