CIT v. R.Ramaiah & Ors (Kar)

146 ITR 39High Court1984#6999 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. R.Ramaiah & Ors (Kar)

SRI. G.S. SHIVANNA(HUF),BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-4, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. G. S. Shivanna (Huf), Pcit, Vs. No.3, Basaveshwara Nilaya, Bengaluru – 4, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaahg 7097 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish S, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Satish S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…ter getting the land converted for non-agricultural use. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Course in the case of Raja J. Rameshwar Rao vs CIT [1961] 42 ITR 179 and the decision of jurisdictional High Course in the case of R. Ramaiah and others [1984] 146 ITR 39 (Kar) there is a possibility of holding these transaction as adventure in the nature of trade and taxing the income from the sale of plots as the income from business. However, no enquiries in this regards has been made by the AO. Therefore, it is held that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest revenue…