(1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

133 ITR 470High Court1982#2843 most cited

What is (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For an activity to be considered 'business' under income tax law, it must occupy time, attention, and labour with a normal object of making profit. Profit motive is an important factor, and the activity should involve a continuous course of dealings between two or more persons.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT · 133 ITR 470 · definition of business · meaning of business activity · profit motive · Section 2(15) proviso · charitable trust exemption · general public utility · continuous activity · reciprocity · business income

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 11(4A)Section 115BBESection 12Section 12ABSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)mliput to usesection 10(23c)section 2(15)section 40a(3)

Judgments citing (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…the Tribunal in the case of Everplus Securities & Finance Ltd. 101 ITD 151 and also referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K. S. Venkati Subbiah Reddier 221 ITR 181 and Hon’ble Delhi HC in the case of Bharat Development Pvt. Ltd. 133 ITR 470 for the proposition that purchasing of shares for controlling interest cannot be treated as business activities. In respect of contention of the assessee that the dividend income was incidental to the business activity of the assessee, the AO rejected it by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Amritaben…