CIT v. Dhable, Bodbe Parose, Kale, Lute and Choudhari

202 ITR 98High Court1992#9539 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 54B

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)(b)section 2(14)(iii)(a)section 2(14)(iii)section 96section 2(47)(v)section 53jdaclarificatory amendmentsection 2(14)right to receivecancellation of registrationsection 2(47)

Judgments citing CIT v. Dhable, Bodbe Parose, Kale, Lute and Choudhari

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das &
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 40

…s were sold within a short span, i.e. less than a year from the date of purchase. This fact does not constitute ‘an adventure in the nature of trade” as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Dhable, Bobde Parose, Kale, Lute and Choudhari 202 ITR 98. The assessee also discharged the onus of proving his intention at the time of purchase is to hold the lands as investment by showing this as a part of investment in the books of account. The treatment given in the books of account gives a clear picture of the intention of the assessee whether to hold this subject land as investment or as stock-in…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE vs. NADAKRISHNA THIMMAIAH, BANGALORE

ITA 653/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…Chennai ITAT in ITO v. Smt. Ayisha Fathima (73 taxmann.com 78); e) Hyderabad ITAT in Smt. M. Vijaya v. DCIT (49 taxmann.com 26); f) Chennai ITAT in ITO v. Chandar HUF (12 taxmann.com 305); g) Bombay HC in CIT v. Dhable, Bodbe Parose, Kale, Lute and Choudhari (202 ITR 98). 3.11 Without prejudice to the above, the ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that the asset transferred is an agriculture land within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The Assessee submits that although the lands were converted, agricultural activities were carried on by the Assessee till the date of transfer. The same can be evidenc…

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

ITA 130/BANG/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…Chennai ITAT in ITO v. Smt. Ayisha Fathima (73 taxmann.com 78); e) Hyderabad ITAT in Smt. M. Vijaya v. DCIT (49 taxmann.com 26); f) Chennai ITAT in ITO v. Chandar HUF (12 taxmann.com 305); g) Bombay HC in CIT v. Dhable, Bodbe Parose, Kale, Lute and Choudhari (202 ITR 98). 3.11 Without prejudice to the above, the ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that the asset transferred is an agriculture land within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The Assessee submits that although the lands were converted, agricultural activities were carried on by the Assessee till the date of transfer. The same can be evidenc…

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2006-07 to 2009-10 Late Smt. K. Leelavathy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner By L/R Shri M. Thimmegowda, of Income Tax, # F-113, Central Chambers, Central Circle 1(3), 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Bengaluru. Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560 009. PAN: ABRPL 1523B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronounceme…

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2006-07 to 2009-10 Late Smt. K. Leelavathy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner By L/R Shri M. Thimmegowda, of Income Tax, # F-113, Central Chambers, Central Circle 1(3), 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Bengaluru. Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560 009. PAN: ABRPL 1523B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronounceme…

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2006-07 to 2009-10 Late Smt. K. Leelavathy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner By L/R Shri M. Thimmegowda, of Income Tax, # F-113, Central Chambers, Central Circle 1(3), 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Bengaluru. Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560 009. PAN: ABRPL 1523B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronounceme…

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2006-07 to 2009-10 Late Smt. K. Leelavathy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner By L/R Shri M. Thimmegowda, of Income Tax, # F-113, Central Chambers, Central Circle 1(3), 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Bengaluru. Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560 009. PAN: ABRPL 1523B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronounceme…

VINOD PARASMAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 3, THANE

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

ITA 1883/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vinod Parasmal Jain, Dcit, Circle 3, Thane, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle 1302/A, Vikas Palms, Dr. Vs. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Civil Industrial Estate, Road No. 16Z, Hospital, Thane(W)-400 604. Thane-400 601 Pan No. Aaopj 9371 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 2(14)

…uch circumstances there was no reason to hold the income to be business income. The Ld. counsel in support of his contention relied on the Vinod Parasmal Jain 10 decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Dhable Bobde, Kale, Lute & Chaudhari, 202 ITR 98 (Bom) and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta 409 ITR 196. 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that it was onus of the assessee to produce so-called farmer Shri Rakesh B. Kulkarni for verification by the Assessing…

GORDON BRUCE SERRAO,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -28, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3105/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/wFor Respondent: Shri M. Daya Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…ve directed the Assessing Officer to make enquiry and examine the issue afresh. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– i) Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v/s CIT, [1995] 57 ITR 21 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Dhable & Ors., [1993] 202 ITR 98 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.); iv) CIT v/s Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., [2008] 323 ITR 632 (Bom.); v) CIT v/s Kiran Hirji Shah, [2015] 231 Taxman 670 (Bom.); 6 Gordon Bruce Serrao vi) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.); vii) MOIL Ltd. v/sCIT, [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bo…

SHRI VINIT KRISHNAKUMAR GOYAL,,PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1471/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1471/Pun/2013 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Garg
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…n made by the purchaser i.e. TATA International DLT P. Ltd. This permission was granted by Deputy Director, Town Planning, Junnar, Khed, Pune on 02.06.2010. 9. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhable, Bobde, Parose, Kale, Lute & Chowdhari, (1992) 202 ITR 98 (Bom.), the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has observed that “the case of the Revenue mainly appears that the intention of the assessee is to do business. However, no materials was brought in on record by the Revenue in support of this stand except the allegation that some of the members of the assessee AOP, had also entered into similar deals in their…

PRAKASH CHOITRAM TEKWANI,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1045/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 54B

…e nature of asset. In support of his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Debbie Alemao, 331 ITR 0059(Bom); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhable, Bobde, Parose, Kale, Lute & Choudhary, 202 ITR 98 (Bom); iii. Supriya Kanwar Vs. Income Tax Officer, 149 ITD 001 (Jodhpur)(TM); iv. Haresh V. Milani Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, 114 ITD 428 (Pune-Trib.); v. Shri Anil R. Bihani Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 2502/PN/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 decided on 11-04-2016. 4. Au contraire, Shri Sanjeev Ghei representing the Department ve…

CIT v. Dhable, Bodbe Parose, Kale, Lute and Choudhari (202 ITR 98) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax