190 (Ahd.Trib) Maanraj Trading (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

167 ITR 507High Court1987#16997 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing 190 (Ahd.Trib) Maanraj Trading (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

…C) Janab Abubucker Salt v. CIT, 45 ITR 37 State of Gujarat v. Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd., 19 STC 1 (SC) Tash Investment (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 106 taxmann.com 190 (Ahd.Trib) Maanraj Trading (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, 23 taxmann.com 458 (Mum.Trib) CIT v. Smt. Minal Rameshchandra, 167 ITR 507 (Guj) Circular No.6/2016 dated 29.2.2016 Press Release dated 24.8.2019 61. Thus it was submitted that in the instant case, trading in F & 0 derivative has to be treated as business income for the following reasons:- - The intention of the Appellant is clear to trade in F & 0 to make profits with a shorter holding period; - The risk involved in t…

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

ANAND R BAHL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed and that by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7706/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Hiten M. Vasant (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth (DR)

Section 2(14)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7706/Mum/2011 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Anand R. Bahl, Dy. CIT, Range 20(3), Saket, Plot No. 84, MIDC, 15th Piramal Chambers, 6th Floor, Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400093. PAN: AEBPB 7854 G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.7332/Mum/2011 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Anand R. Bahl, Jt.CIT, Range 20(1), Saket, Plot No. 84, MIDC, 15th Piramal Chambers, 6th Floor, Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400012…

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

…parties did not envisage any active role for the land owner in the matter of carrying out development, and construction on the said land. 9.8. The Reliance placed by 'the AIR on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Minal Ramchandra (167 ITR 507) appeared to be relevant in this regard. In this judgment the Gujarat High Court had considered the judgment of Apex Court in the case of G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co. V CIT (35 ITR 594) wherein the apex court had held that normally purchase of land represents Investments of money and not as a business venture. The Gujarat High Court held that! if t…

M/S SILVER SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12

ITA 1642/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

Section 143(3)

…of cases, maintenance charges were not levied and the tenants were not allowed to use the common facilities. In coming to this conclusion, the learned CIT (Appeals) relied on the following judicial pronouncements :- (i) CIT V Smt. Minal Rameshchandra (1987) 167 ITR 507 (Guj) (ii) East India Housing & Land Development Trust V CIT (1962) 42 ITR 49 (SC) (iii) Mahesh Investments V ACIT [ 55(1) ITCL 0086 (Kar)] 3. Aggrieved with the orders of the CIT (Appeals) – III, Bangalore for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 dt.30.10.2014, the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal raising the following id…