CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd.

62 ITR 578High Court1966#4712 most cited

What is CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred to improve property before sale, such as dividing land into plots and laying roads, does not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade if the primary purpose is to obtain a better price for the property.

25

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

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kasturi Estates Pvt. Ltd. · 62 ITR 578 · adventure in the nature of trade · capital gains · cost of improvement · land division · earning better price

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 45Section 54BSection 54F

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)cost of improvementshort term capital gainsmalabar industrialsection 45long term capital gainsshort term capital gainlimited scrutinyagricultural incomenon-application of mindlong term capital gainerroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd.

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

…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 that the assessee has sold the land by dividing it into small plots…

ACIT CIRCLE-36(1), NEW DELHI vs. HIMANSHU GARG, NEW DELHI

ITA 819/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 54BSection 54F

…vs. CIT 57 ITR 21 SC, it has been held that the mere fact that the owner of an immovable property takes steps to enhance its value before selling it does not amount to an adventure in the nature of trade. 14. In the case of CIT vs. Kasturi Estates Pvt. Ltd., 62 ITR 578 (Mad.), the assessee had even parceled the land into plots and incurred expenses for laying roads on filling up, corporation survey and other matters, yet the court held that these steps were no more than enabling the assessee to earn a better price rather than plunging into the waters of trade. 15. In CIT Vs. Hoick Larsen 160 ITR 67 (SC) it was…

PUPPALA GOPI KRISHNA,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस बालाकृ"णन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.82/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Puppala Gopi Krishna, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Guntur. Income Tax, PAN: ADNPP 4577 H Circle-1(1), Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee by : Sri GVN Hari, AR ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Satya Sa…

KANUBHAI VANMALIBHAI PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

…ed (135 ITD-441) (Delhi), 15 Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF Vs ITO  Harjit Singh Sanga (37 taxmann.com 63 P& H),  P. K. N. & Co Limited (60 ITR 65-SC),  Kaur Singh (144 ITR 756 P & H),  Michael Kallivayalil (102 ITR 202 Ker),  Kasturi Estate (P) Limited (62 ITR 578 Madras),  Omkarmal Rambilas Ginning and Processing Factory (44 SOT 544 Hyd Trib.),  Rewashanker A Kothari (283 ITR 338- Gujarat),  Marudhar Hotels (P) Limited (92 DTR-1 Jodhpur Trib.) and  D.N. Krishanappa (21 DTR -11 Bangalore –Trib.) 9. At the time of making submissions by ld AR for the assessee, we raised quarry, if the order of Tribunal in…

VAIJANTI JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Vaijanti Jain, Vs Ito, C-407, 2Nd Floor, Saraswati Ward-40(3), Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaafpj5260J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms.Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Vaijanti Jain, vs ITO, C-407, 2nd Floor, Saraswati Ward-40(3), Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. PAN-AAAFPJ5260J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Ms.Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Respondent by Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013- 14 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi dated 18.12.2018. The assessee…

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…n HC) (iv) Bangalore ITAT in case of M/s.Thirumala Venkateshwara Estates and Agencies, Bangalore in ITA No.553/Bang/2010 – Dated 28- 10- 2010. (v) CIT v. M/s. Rungta Properties Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 234 (Calcutta) (vi) CIT v. Kasturi Estates Pvt. Ltd., 62 ITR 578 (Mad) (vii) CIT vs MLM Mahalingam Chettiar (1977) 107 ITR 236 (Mad) (viii) CIT vs Suresh Chand Goyal (2008) 298 ITR 277 (MP) (ix) Income Tax officer v. Sitaram Chamaria (2006) 6 SOT 594 (Mumbai-Trib.) 2.28 The Ld. A.R. submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that in order to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act,…

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…n HC) (iv) Bangalore ITAT in case of M/s.Thirumala Venkateshwara Estates and Agencies, Bangalore in ITA No.553/Bang/2010 – Dated 28- 10- 2010. (v) CIT v. M/s. Rungta Properties Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 234 (Calcutta) (vi) CIT v. Kasturi Estates Pvt. Ltd., 62 ITR 578 (Mad) (vii) CIT vs MLM Mahalingam Chettiar (1977) 107 ITR 236 (Mad) (viii) CIT vs Suresh Chand Goyal (2008) 298 ITR 277 (MP) (ix) Income Tax officer v. Sitaram Chamaria (2006) 6 SOT 594 (Mumbai-Trib.) 2.28 The Ld. A.R. submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that in order to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act,…

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

…ctivity. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Saroj Kumar 18 Sh. Surender Meena vs. PCIT Mazumdar v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 242, the dividing line between the two types of cases is very thin. The decision of this court in CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. [1966] 62 ITR 578, has only reiterated the position that in order to hold that an activity is in the nature of an adventure, there must be positive materials to prove that the assessee intended to trade in such an activity and, in the absence of evidence, the sale of immovable property consisting of land could give rise only to capital accretions”. • B. Narasimha…

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

…of 15 i. CIT (Central) v. Bagmane Developers (P.) Ltd [2017] 392 ITR 379 (Karnataka) ii. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC) iii. Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd. V. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502 (Madras) iv. CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. [1966] 62 ITR 578 (Madras) v. CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen [1989] 176 ITR 393 (Madras) vi. CIT v. Raunaq Singh Swaran Singh [1972] 85 ITR 220 (Delhi) vii. Bhogilal H. Patel v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 692 (Bombay) viii. CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal [2007] 298 ITR 277 (Madhya Pradesh) ix. CIT v. Sushila Devi Jain [2003] 259 ITR 671 (Punjab & Haryana) x. CIT v. Mohakampur Ice &…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE-7,, PUNE vs. M/S. ADRUS ESTATE AND PROPERTIES LLP,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 544/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.544/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Paridwala / Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendudas

…owing decisions : • Janaki Ram Bahadu Ram Vs CIT (SC) 57 ITR 21 • CIT Vs. Baguio Investment Pvt. Ltd – Bomby High Court (ITA 998/2011) • CIT Vs. Nathuram Ramnarayan (P) Ltd – Bombay High Court 151 ITR 767. • CIT Vs. Kasturi Estates P. Ltd – Madras High Court 62 ITR 578. • PCIT Vs. John Poomkudy – Kerala High Court – 101 taxmann.com 244. Finally, he submits that the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Baguio Investment Pvt. Ltd is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case and that the order of ld.CIT(A) is based on the proper appreciation of the facts and legal position go…

SHRI.BABULAL,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAD-2(2)(4), BANGALORE

ITA 887/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice-Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Soumya K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Jr. Standing Counsel
Section 54Section 54F

…d that land is not generally or ordinarily a trading commodity unlike, for example, manufactured articles that are normally the subject-matter of trade. Land, on the other hand, is often the subject-matter of investment CIT Vs. Kasturi Estates (P) Ltd. (1966) 62 ITR 578 (Mad). 12. In cases of purchase and sale of land as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja J.Rameshwar Rao (supra), a decision on which the learned DR placed reliance, the intention at the time of purchase will be a relevant factor. When a person acquires land with a view to selling it later after developing it, he is carrying…

NATTA SURYA RAO,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 404/VIZ/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.404/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Natta Suryarao Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Late Manganna Ward-1 D.No.2-20-5 Tanuku Ambati Vari Street Old Town, Tanuku [Pan :Ahrpn 9648M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri.Y.Ratnakar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri.Y.Ratnakar, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, DR
Section 148Section 45(2)Section 54F

…plots could not give any inference that the assessee's activity could be classified as-an adventure in the nature of trade. In support of its conclusion, the Tribunal also placed reliance on the decision of this court in CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P) Ltd. (1966) 62 ITR 578. In the result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that the excess realization was assessable only a capital gains and directed the ITO to compute the gains for two years as the sale Of plots had taken place over a period of two years." 8 "This court in CTT v.Kasturi Estates (P) Ltd. (1966) 62 ITR 578 explained the test to be applied to such…

TELENOR (INDIA) COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7541/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. &nFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rans, CIT(DR)

…5.7.4. (f) He further supported the findings of the CIT(A) wherein it had been held that the assessee in the alternative earned income by way of profits and gains from the business and relied on the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Kasturi Estates Pvt. Ltd., 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) (ii) M. Raman Pillai vs. CIT, 51 ITR 829 (Ker.) (iii) CIT vs. P.K.N. Co. Ltd., 80 ITR 65(SC) 40 41 (iv) R. Dalmia vs. CIT, 137 ITR 665 (Del.) (v) Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal & Son Limited vs. Government of Hyderabad, 25 ITR 449 (SC) (vi) Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 68 ITR 486 (SC). (g) He had objected to the admission of addi…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MOHINDER PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2310/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…ircumstances pro and con; what is important to consider is their distinctive character. In each case, it is the total effect of all the relevant factors and circumstances that determines the character of the transaction (vii) CIT vs. Kasturi Estates (P) Ltd. 62 ITR 578 Madras, is a judgment which is truly relevant for deciding the controversy in the present case for more than one reason. In the first place it has considered the three judgments of which the reference has been made (supra) viz. cases of (a) Californian Copper Syndicate Vs. Harris; (b) Janaki Ram Bahadur Ram vs. CIT and (c) G. Venkataswami Naidu &…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ARJUN PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2309/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…ircumstances pro and con; what is important to consider is their distinctive character. In each case, it is the total effect of all the relevant factors and circumstances that determines the character of the transaction (vii) CIT vs. Kasturi Estates (P) Ltd. 62 ITR 578 Madras, is a judgment which is truly relevant for deciding the controversy in the present case for more than one reason. In the first place it has considered the three judgments of which the reference has been made (supra) viz. cases of (a) Californian Copper Syndicate Vs. Harris; (b) Janaki Ram Bahadur Ram vs. CIT and (c) G. Venkataswami Naidu &…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRI T. ARUPRAKASH, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3191/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Palanichamy, JCIT
Section 54F

…t was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. :- 3 -: 4. In reply, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had also considered the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Kasturi Estates Pvt. Ltd. reported in 62 ITR 578 to hold that the transaction itself should be looked at to see whether it is essentially of a commercial character. It was a submission that this is one off transactions done by the assessee. It was a submission that the assessee was a Doctor and the assessee had desired to do agricultural work. However, after purchase of the land, it was found…

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)

…ssessee took certain steps for selling bigger plot to fetch higher price, including seeking relevant permissions, 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…

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)

…ssessee took certain steps for selling bigger plot to fetch higher price, including seeking relevant permissions, 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…

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)

…ssessee took certain steps for selling bigger plot to fetch higher price, including seeking relevant permissions, 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…

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)

…ssessee took certain steps for selling bigger plot to fetch higher price, including seeking relevant permissions, 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…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. (62 ITR 578) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax