CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen

176 ITR 393High Court1989#5990 most cited
19

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

Judgments citing CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen

M G GOPAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.270/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M.G. Gopal, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Afwpm6317H Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Ma Rahim, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri MA Rahim, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…elief in computation for treating it as capital gains. However, the Ld. AO erroneously treated the same as business income of the assessee. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mohammed Mohideen [1989] 176 ITR 393 (Mad.); CIT, Madras vs. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd [1966] 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) and the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal [2008] 298 ITR 277 (MP) and pleaded to set aside the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities on this issue. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative [“Ld. DR”] argued…

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…nd business. The main earning on the sale of the land was in the nature of capital 17 Sh. Surender Meena vs. PCIT gain and, therefore, not assessable as income from business and this question is essentially a question of fact”. • CIT Vs. A Mohammed Mohideen 176 ITR 393 (Madras) (HC) Para 11 of this order is reproduced as under:- “Bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is necessary to examine the facts of the present case. Already we have noticed the contentions urged for the Revenue. The first contention is that the Tribunal is in error in holding that the Department has not establis…

M/S FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 259/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan .M, CIT DR
Section 234Section 51

…ected to the treatment of sale of lands as a Business income instead of Long term capital gains and cited following case laws in support of it.  CIT Vs Sudhita Devi Jain 259 ITR671(P&H)  CIT Vs Suresh Chand Goyal 298 ITR 277 (MP).  CIT Vs Mohammed Mahideen 176 ITR 393 (Mad). Inspite of the objections, the Ld.AO passed the order treating the transactions as business income. Page 6 of 15 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) considered the issue by observing as under. “4. Since the assessee had intetion of selling the land in future, he entered into an agr…

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

…e in the nature of trade and he had correctly offered his income from sale of properties as income from capital gains. To support his contention, the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: a) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393 (Mad) b) R. Vasanthi Ram Narayan vs. DCIT (ITA 1802&1803/MDS/2015, order dated 18.12.2015. c) D.S. Virani and Others vs. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 255 (Guj). d) Ashwin Ramesh Mansharamani vs. IT) (2004) 1 SOT 10 (Mumbai). e) Sri. Hiteshkumar Ashok Kumar Vaswani vs. JCIT (2017) Taxcorp (AT) 57096 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). f) Jayanthibhai D. Panchal vs.DCIT (IT(S…

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

…e in the nature of trade and he had correctly offered his income from sale of properties as income from capital gains. To support his contention, the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: a) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393 (Mad) b) R. Vasanthi Ram Narayan vs. DCIT (ITA 1802&1803/MDS/2015, order dated 18.12.2015. c) D.S. Virani and Others vs. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 255 (Guj). d) Ashwin Ramesh Mansharamani vs. IT) (2004) 1 SOT 10 (Mumbai). e) Sri. Hiteshkumar Ashok Kumar Vaswani vs. JCIT (2017) Taxcorp (AT) 57096 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). f) Jayanthibhai D. Panchal vs.DCIT (IT(S…

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

…e in the nature of trade and he had correctly offered his income from sale of properties as income from capital gains. To support his contention, the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: a) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393 (Mad) b) R. Vasanthi Ram Narayan vs. DCIT (ITA 1802&1803/MDS/2015, order dated 18.12.2015. c) D.S. Virani and Others vs. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 255 (Guj). d) Ashwin Ramesh Mansharamani vs. IT) (2004) 1 SOT 10 (Mumbai). e) Sri. Hiteshkumar Ashok Kumar Vaswani vs. JCIT (2017) Taxcorp (AT) 57096 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). f) Jayanthibhai D. Panchal vs.DCIT (IT(S…

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

…e in the nature of trade and he had correctly offered his income from sale of properties as income from capital gains. To support his contention, the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: a) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393 (Mad) b) R. Vasanthi Ram Narayan vs. DCIT (ITA 1802&1803/MDS/2015, order dated 18.12.2015. c) D.S. Virani and Others vs. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 255 (Guj). d) Ashwin Ramesh Mansharamani vs. IT) (2004) 1 SOT 10 (Mumbai). e) Sri. Hiteshkumar Ashok Kumar Vaswani vs. JCIT (2017) Taxcorp (AT) 57096 (ITAT, Ahmedabad). f) Jayanthibhai D. Panchal vs.DCIT (IT(S…

S.MMOHAMMED ABBAS,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 691/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.R.S.Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपील सं/ Ita No.691/Chny/2015 िनधा&रणवष&/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mr. S.M. Mohammed Abbas Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.25A-4/1, Ami Mid Town Circle-Ii, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore-641 002. Pan: Adepm5956C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. D.Kumudha, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2018

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. D.Kumudha, JCIT

…t to various persons. According to the counsel, the very same land was the subject of wealth tax assessment. The land was treated as capital asset by the assesse. Placing reliance on the judgement of Madras High Court in CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that when the owner of the land developed the land and converted into house sites with a view to get a better price, it could hardly be said that the transaction is anything more than realization of capital investment or conversion of one form of asset into another. Therefore, both the lower autho…

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 209/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (Addl.CIT)
Section 2(14)

…haveer Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5) Alwar  Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 37 ITR 242 (SC)  Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 57 ITR 21 (SC)  CIT Vs. Sureshchand Goyal 298 ITR 277 (MP)  CIT Vs. A Mohammed Mohideen 176 ITR 393 (Madras)  B. Narasimha Reddy Vs. ITO (1994) 48 TTJ 329/47 ITD 398 (Hyd) (Trib.) In view of above, even if it is held that income from sale of the agricultural plots is liable for tax, it can be taxed only as a capital gain and not as a business income. 5. Without prejudice to above, even if it is held that assessee has converted the agricultura…

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 930/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P. P. Meena (JCIT)
Section 54

…an & Mohan Khan [2008] 304 ITR 194 (RAJ)  Saroj Kumar Mazumdar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (37 ITR 242) (SC)  Janki Ram Bahadur Ram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (57 ITR 21) (SC)  CIT vs. Sureshchand Goyal 298 ITR 277 (MP)  CIT vs. A Mohammed Mohideen 176 ITR 393 (Madras) In view of above, it was submitted that the AO be directed to assess the gain from sale of plots as long term capital gain and after allowing deduction u/s 54 and indexation on cost of improvement, work out the long term capital gain. 2.11 Without prejudice to above, it was submitted by the ld AR during the course of hearing that even…

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)

…missions, 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 at the intention of an assessee at the time of purch…

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)

…missions, 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 at the intention of an assessee at the time of purch…

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)

…missions, 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 at the intention of an assessee at the time of purch…

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)

…missions, 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 at the intention of an assessee at the time of purch…

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

…ng the same for more than ten years as investment. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee intended to deal in land at the time of purchase of the property. On an identical set of facts, the Madras High Court in CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393, after considering the judgment in CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. (1966) 62 ITR 578, found that if a land owner developed his land, expended money in laying roads, converted the same to the housing sites, with an intention of getting better price on sale of the land and sold the plots for a consideration to various persons which resulted in…

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

…ng the same for more than ten years as investment. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee intended to deal in land at the time of purchase of the property. On an identical set of facts, the Madras High Court in CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393, after considering the judgment in CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. (1966) 62 ITR 578, found that if a land owner developed his land, expended money in laying roads, converted the same to the housing sites, with an intention of getting better price on sale of the land and sold the plots for a consideration to various persons which resulted in…

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

…ng the same for more than ten years as investment. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee intended to deal in land at the time of purchase of the property. On an identical set of facts, the Madras High Court in CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393, after considering the judgment in CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. (1966) 62 ITR 578, found that if a land owner developed his land, expended money in laying roads, converted the same to the housing sites, with an intention of getting better price on sale of the land and sold the plots for a consideration to various persons which resulted in…

DCIT, TAMBARAM vs. SHRIDI ESTATES, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1803/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

…ng the same for more than ten years as investment. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee intended to deal in land at the time of purchase of the property. On an identical set of facts, the Madras High Court in CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393, after considering the judgment in CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. (1966) 62 ITR 578, found that if a land owner developed his land, expended money in laying roads, converted the same to the housing sites, with an intention of getting better price on sale of the land and sold the plots for a consideration to various persons which resulted in…

DCIT, TAMBARAM vs. SHRIDI ESTATES, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1802/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

…ng the same for more than ten years as investment. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee intended to deal in land at the time of purchase of the property. On an identical set of facts, the Madras High Court in CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen (1989) 176 ITR 393, after considering the judgment in CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. (1966) 62 ITR 578, found that if a land owner developed his land, expended money in laying roads, converted the same to the housing sites, with an intention of getting better price on sale of the land and sold the plots for a consideration to various persons which resulted in…

CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen (176 ITR 393) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax