Ashok Kumar Jalan v. CIT

187 ITR 316High Court#15162 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(42a)period of holdingsection 2(14)disallowance of interest expendituresection 45section 36(1)(iii)profits and gains of business or professionsection 132(1)long term capital gainschange of opinionregular assessmentdisallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing Ashok Kumar Jalan v. CIT

DCIT C.C. 8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2302/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Smt Shailja Rai, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 69C

…hus the income on sale of flats was not chargeable under the head ‗Profits and Gains of Business or Profession‘. In support of this contention, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Jalan vs. CIT reported at 187 ITR 316 (Bom.), Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in ITA Nos. 2004, 2005, 2300 to 2302/Mum/2021 Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2018-19 the case of CIT vs. Dr. Indu Bala Chhabra 132 taxman 45 wherein the Hon‘ble Court observed that income from sale of shops cannot be treated as business income as no prudent person would wait for ten or twenty years to dispo…

DCIT CC 8(4) ., Mumbai vs. M/S. Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2301/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Smt Shailja Rai, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 69C

…hus the income on sale of flats was not chargeable under the head ‗Profits and Gains of Business or Profession‘. In support of this contention, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Jalan vs. CIT reported at 187 ITR 316 (Bom.), Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in ITA Nos. 2004, 2005, 2300 to 2302/Mum/2021 Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2018-19 the case of CIT vs. Dr. Indu Bala Chhabra 132 taxman 45 wherein the Hon‘ble Court observed that income from sale of shops cannot be treated as business income as no prudent person would wait for ten or twenty years to dispo…

DCIT CC 8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2300/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Smt Shailja Rai, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 69C

…hus the income on sale of flats was not chargeable under the head ‗Profits and Gains of Business or Profession‘. In support of this contention, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Jalan vs. CIT reported at 187 ITR 316 (Bom.), Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in ITA Nos. 2004, 2005, 2300 to 2302/Mum/2021 Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2018-19 the case of CIT vs. Dr. Indu Bala Chhabra 132 taxman 45 wherein the Hon‘ble Court observed that income from sale of shops cannot be treated as business income as no prudent person would wait for ten or twenty years to dispo…

Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir -8(4), Mumbai

ITA 2005/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Smt Shailja Rai, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 69C

…hus the income on sale of flats was not chargeable under the head ‗Profits and Gains of Business or Profession‘. In support of this contention, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Jalan vs. CIT reported at 187 ITR 316 (Bom.), Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in ITA Nos. 2004, 2005, 2300 to 2302/Mum/2021 Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2018-19 the case of CIT vs. Dr. Indu Bala Chhabra 132 taxman 45 wherein the Hon‘ble Court observed that income from sale of shops cannot be treated as business income as no prudent person would wait for ten or twenty years to dispo…

Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir-8(40, Mumbai

ITA 2004/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Smt Shailja Rai, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 69C

…hus the income on sale of flats was not chargeable under the head ‗Profits and Gains of Business or Profession‘. In support of this contention, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Jalan vs. CIT reported at 187 ITR 316 (Bom.), Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in ITA Nos. 2004, 2005, 2300 to 2302/Mum/2021 Aurum Platz Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 to 2018-19 the case of CIT vs. Dr. Indu Bala Chhabra 132 taxman 45 wherein the Hon‘ble Court observed that income from sale of shops cannot be treated as business income as no prudent person would wait for ten or twenty years to dispo…

Rajendra B. Raisoni, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 737/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.737/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Rajendra B. Raisoni, 401/402, Poonam Plaza, ………. अपीलाथ" / Market Yard Road, Market Yard, Appellant Pune – 411 037. Pan : Aaspr4761K. बनाम V/S

For Appellant: Shri Vipin GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(14)

…gains arisen on sale of transaction being the solitary transaction, cannot be 6 considered to be adventure in nature of trade and for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Jalan Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 316. CIT Vs. Jalan Kumar 316 (Bom). He further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Venkata Swami Naidu & Co. Vs. CIT reported in 35 ITR 594. Ld.D.R. on the other hand, supported the order of AO and Ld.CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present grou…

Ashok Kumar Jalan v. CIT (187 ITR 316) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax