What is CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal authority for?

The division of land into small plots for sale is considered an adventure in the nature of trade and income derived from it is to be treated as business income, not long-term capital gains.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal (298 ITR 277), spanning 2013 to 2024.

CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal (298 ITR 277)

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

…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 therefore, the Ld. Revenue Authorities treated the same as adventure in the nature of trade and computed the 6 incom…

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

…– 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, 1961, the learned Pr. CIT shall ascertain from the records that twin conditions embedded in said provision i.e, the asses…

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

…– 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, 1961, the learned Pr. CIT shall ascertain from the records that twin conditions embedded in said provision i.e, the asses…

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

…start a venture in nature of trade - Held, yes - Whether surplus received by assessee as a result of sale of jute press did not arise out of an adventure in nature of trade and was therefore not rightly assessed to tax - Held, yes • CIT Vs. Sureshchand Goyal 298 ITR 277 (MP) (HC) Para 15 of this order is reproduced as under: “Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of the view that the selling of own land after plotting it out in order to secure better price, is not an adventure in the nature of trade or business. The word "business" has been defined under Section 2(13) of the…

SHRI DHIRAJ RAMBHAU LINGADE L/H OF LATE SMT. MEENAKSHI RAMBHAU MLINGADE,,BULDHANA vs. A.C.I.T. , AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 41/NAG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dhiraj Rambhau Lingade Vs. The Acit L/H Of Late Smt. Meenakshi Rambhau Lingade Akola Circle Buldhana Akola Pan No.:Abopl 3689 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S.C. Thakar, Adv. Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv Revenue By :Smt. Agnes P Thomas (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Thakar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Agnes P Thomas (CIT-DR)

Section 54F

…a case will not be trading or business profits because the transaction is one of realisation of assets in investment rather than one in the course of trade carried on by the assessee or an adventure in the nature of trade. z. CIT Vs.Suresh Chand Goyal (2008) 298 ITR 277 (MP) - There was nothing on record to show that land was purchased for the purpose of selling into plots. There ws isolated activity and plots were said to same better price, therefore, such isolated activity could not come within perview of adventure in the nature of trade in business. The main earning on the sale of land was in the nature of ca…

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

…ut of the income so arrived. The assessee objected 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 selli…

SHRI.SURESH NAGARAJA RAO KESTUR ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 367/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Likith R Prakash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, ACIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…CIT vs Ramar rani Kalia reported in (2013) 358 ITR 499;  Decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) 207 ITR 148  Decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of CIT vs Suresh Chand Goyal reported in (2008) 298 ITR 277  Decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Manna Lal Nirmal Kumar Surana reported in (2003) 264 ITR 116 3.5 On the contrary, the Ld.Sr.DR submitted that the transaction was in the nature of business activity carried on by the 3 co-owners. Reliance was placed on page 15 of small paper book, wherein the co-ownership agreement date…

LATE VITHALDAS KHUSALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 629/AHD/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.629/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1998-99 Late Shri Vithaldas Khushaldas बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Mali, L/H Hasmukhbhai Income Tax, Navsari Circle- Vs. Vithaldas Mali Navsari Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Bazar, Navsari [Pan: Abopm 3924 E] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2019 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena Am: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad, (In Short “The Cit (A)”) All Dated 03.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 1998-99 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Navsari Circle- Navsari (Hereinafter Referred As “The Ao”). 2. Ground No.(I) & Ground No. (Ii) Regarding Reopening Of Assessment & Validity Of Assessment Is Not Pressed Before Us, Hence, Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

…Shri Maganbhai Patel. Thus, the assessee has not carried out any business activity hence, capital gains has been rightly disclosed. The learned counsel has relied on decision of Hon`ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal [2008] 298 ITR 277 (MP), wherein in identical situation where agricultural land was given to the assessee as gift. In the present case, also the assessee has developed the land, and sold it as plots just. Therefore, such activity cannot be considered as the adventure in nature of trade but assessable as capital gains. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case o…

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2127/AHD/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…Patel. Thus, the assessee has not carried out any business activity, hence, capital gains has been rightly disclosed. The learned counsel for the assessee relying on decision of Hon`ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal [2008] 298 ITR 277 (MP) where in identical situation where agricultural land was given to the assessee as gift. Assessee developed the land, and sold it as plots just as what the assessee has done. It was held that activity was not in the adventure in nature of trade but assessable as capital gains. The assessee has also acquired land in similar fashion and not pur…

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2125/AHD/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…Patel. Thus, the assessee has not carried out any business activity, hence, capital gains has been rightly disclosed. The learned counsel for the assessee relying on decision of Hon`ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal [2008] 298 ITR 277 (MP) where in identical situation where agricultural land was given to the assessee as gift. Assessee developed the land, and sold it as plots just as what the assessee has done. It was held that activity was not in the adventure in nature of trade but assessable as capital gains. The assessee has also acquired land in similar fashion and not pur…

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2123/AHD/2014[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…Patel. Thus, the assessee has not carried out any business activity, hence, capital gains has been rightly disclosed. The learned counsel for the assessee relying on decision of Hon`ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal [2008] 298 ITR 277 (MP) where in identical situation where agricultural land was given to the assessee as gift. Assessee developed the land, and sold it as plots just as what the assessee has done. It was held that activity was not in the adventure in nature of trade but assessable as capital gains. The assessee has also acquired land in similar fashion and not pur…

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1637/AHD/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…Patel. Thus, the assessee has not carried out any business activity, hence, capital gains has been rightly disclosed. The learned counsel for the assessee relying on decision of Hon`ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal [2008] 298 ITR 277 (MP) where in identical situation where agricultural land was given to the assessee as gift. Assessee developed the land, and sold it as plots just as what the assessee has done. It was held that activity was not in the adventure in nature of trade but assessable as capital gains. The assessee has also acquired land in similar fashion and not pur…

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

…ore sale would not be trading activity. Therefore, argued that the activity carried on by the assessee cannot be regarded as business activity. The assessee relied on the following decisions supporting his arguments. (i) CIT Vs. Suresh Chand Goyal reported in 298 ITR 277 (MP) (ii) CIT Vs. A.Mohammed Mohideen (1988) 74 CTR (Mad) 129 (iii) B.Narasimha Reddy Vs. ITO (1994) 49 ttj (Hyd.) 329 (iv) DCIT, Circle-15(1) i/c, Hyd, Vs. Shri B.Venu Madhav, Hyderabad in I.T.A. No.82/Hyd/2015 dt.24.04.2015-I.T.A.T. B Bench, Hyderabad (v) CIT Vs. Kasturi Estates (P) Ltd. 621 ITR 578 (Mad) 6. The second contention of the assesse…

SMT. SANGEETA NAYAR,NEW DELHI vs. THE ITO 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 568/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 45(2)

…of trade and commerce. Whether a particular transaction is adventure in the nature of trade and commerce is to be decided on the principles laid down by various judicial pronouncements, the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chand Goyal 298 ITR 277 (MP) has decided the issue that whether an agricultural land converted to non-agricultural land sold after developing 40 plots was business activity or sale of capital asset. The Hon'ble High Court after considering the various case laws held as under: [ITA No.568/Ind/2016] [Smt. Sangeeta Nayar, New Delhi] [ITA No.568/Ind/2016] [Smt. Sangeet…

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)

…T (2015) 116 DTR 393 (Hyd.) (Trib.) 20 Shri Mahaveer 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 h…

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

…der:  Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sohan Khan & 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 th…

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)

…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 purchase of an asset-whether the same was to be held a…

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)

…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 purchase of an asset-whether the same was to be held a…

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)

…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 purchase of an asset-whether the same was to be held a…

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)

…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 purchase of an asset-whether the same was to be held a…

CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal

What is CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal authority for?

Also referred to as

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal

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

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

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

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

SHRI DHIRAJ RAMBHAU LINGADE L/H OF LATE SMT. MEENAKSHI RAMBHAU MLINGADE,,BULDHANA vs. A.C.I.T. , AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

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

SHRI.SURESH NAGARAJA RAO KESTUR ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(3), BANGALORE

LATE VITHALDAS KHUSALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

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

SMT. SANGEETA NAYAR,NEW DELHI vs. THE ITO 1(2), BHOPAL

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD