CIT v. A. Venkataraman

137 ITR 846High Court1982#13373 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 48

Judgments citing CIT v. A. Venkataraman

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Surendra Nath Gubbala, Visakhapatnam

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

…ns rendered in the following cases: i) CIT Vs. Brandford Trading Co. (P) Ltd. (2002) 125 Taxmann 632 (Mad). ii) Gopee Nath Paul 7 Sons Vs. CIT (2002) 147 Taxmann 629 (Cal). iii) CIT Vs. P. Rajendran (1981) 127 ITR 810 (Ker). iv) CIT Vs. A. Venkataraman (1982) 137 ITR 846 (Mad). v) Damodar G. Nagolia Vs. CIT (2007) 12 SOT 600 (Mum). vi) CIT Vs. Roshanbabu Mohammed Hussain Merchant (2002) 144 Taxmann 720 (Bom). vii) Rajendra Mining Syndicate Vs. CIT (1991) 43 ITR 460 (AP). viii) CIT Vs. Jagadish Sugar Mills (1974) Tax LR 526 (All.) ix) CIT Vs. MD Manohar Rao (1985) 155 ITR 696 (AP). x) Rohtak Textile Mills Ltd (198…

DCIT, Non Corporate Circle - 2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Jayapal Sanjay, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1737/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Jayapal Sanjay Income Tax, Non-Corporate 78/132, Dr. Radhakrishnan Circle-2(1), Chennai Salai, Mylapore, Room No. 320, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Chennai-600004. Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar (Pan: Aavps9647J) Bhavan, 121, M G Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Chennai Vide Ita No. 161/2017-18/(A)-2 Dated 27.03.2019 Passed Against The Order Of Acit, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Chennai Dated 29.12.2017 U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Before Us Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 48

…umstances of the case as discussed above. 14. Further, we note that Ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on certain judicial precedence while granting relief to the assessee which are distinguishable on their own facts. In the case of CIT v. A. Venkataraman (1982) 137 ITR 846 (Mad) it is not discernible as to whether the tenants were related parties as in the present case before us in which 99% of the shares/shareholding is by the related co-owners including the assessee. In respect of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kaushalya Devi v. CIT (2018) 404 ITR 136 (Del) it is not discernible whether the p…

Acmevac Pumps & Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ACIT - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5155/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48(1)

…n has been paid for premature termination of tenancy agreement but not for vacating illegal occupation of premises. The Ld.AR further referring to various case laws including the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs A Venkataraman & Ors 137 ITR 846 held that any payments made to the tenants to obtain vacant possession was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer of property and hence, allowable as deduction. In this connection, he has relied upon the following judgements:- 137 ITR 846 (Mad) CIT v A Venkataraman & Ors. 160 ITR 840 (Del) CIT v Shankuntala Rajesh…

DCIT Cen Cir 3, Mumbai vs. Swan Energy Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6662/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6662 & 3870/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2010-11) Dcit Cen Cir 3 M/S Swan Energy Ltd. Room No. 905, Pratistha Formerly Known As Swan Mills Ltd, 2Nd Bhavan, Marines Lines, बिधम/ Mumbai-400020. Floor, Feltham House, Vs. Ballard Estate, J.N. Herdia Marg, Mumbai- 400001. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs7890Q & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5778 & 2924/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2010-11) M/S Swan Energy Ltd. Acit Rg 7(2) Formerly Known As Swan Room No. 626, M. K. बिधम/ Mills Ltd, 2Nd Floor, Feltham Road, Churchgate, Vs. House, Ballard Estate, J.N. Mumbai-400020. Herdia Marg, Mumbai- 400001. अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. J. P. Bairagazd प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Abha Kala Chanda सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27/09/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement M/S Swan Energy Ltd..

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. BairagazdFor Respondent: Ms. Abha Kala Chanda

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n the following decisions. I) CIT vs. Eagle Theatres (2012) 205 Taxman 449, (Del) ii) Mrs. June Perret vs. ITO 298, ITR 268 (Karnataka) iii) CIT vs. Ms. Piroja C Patel, 242 ITR 582(Bom) iv) CIT vs. V RamaswamyMudaliar 196 ITR 939(Mad) v) CIT vs. Venkat Raman, 137 ITR 846(Mad) vi) Mathuradas Mangaldas Parekh vs. CIT, 126 ITR 669 (Guj) vii) ACIT vs. GD Thirani, 70 lTD 148 (Calcutta Trib.) In the above decisions, it has been held that the amount paid for vacating the property, payment to evict unauthorised occupants of the property, payment to hutment dwellers, payment made tenants in occupation of the property and…

M/S. Sivanandha Mills Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 143Section 143(1)

…yment made. Thus the payment made to secure the release of the property and further to comply with the compromise reached qualifies for deduction u/s. 48(1). He also relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs A. Venkataraman (1982) 137 ITR 846, wherein it was held that retrenchment compensation paid to the employees in terms of the agreement to sell was an allowable deduction incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the sale of the asset. The case of Bawa Cherian Vs ITO (Cochin) was also considered among similar lines. He further relied on the judgment of the Punjab & Har…

Sivanandha Mills Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 143Section 143(1)

DCIT - 20(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.B. Engg. Works, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 616/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6Th Flr, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafj5106C Revenue By Shri S. S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 143(3)

…190 ITR 56, wherein it was held that any expenditure incurred by an assessee to effect the transfer will be expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in the cases CIT vs Venkatraman 137 ITR 846 (Mad), CIT vs Naozar Chenoy 234 ITR 95 (AP), CIT vs Abrar Alvi 247 ITR 313 (Born) and CIT vs Bradfrod 261 ITR 222 (Madras), for the same proposition. In view of these submissions, it was argued that the Assessing Officer was not justified in determining the Short Term Capital Gain at Rs.3,56,00,000/-. 4.3. Before us, Ld. Departmental Representat…