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 277High Court2008#4669 most cited

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal · section 45 · long term capital gains · adventure in the nature of trade · business income · land plots

Issues it is cited on

section 45 long term capital gains long term capital gain section 143(1)section 142(1)previous year section 143(2)transfer prescribed business company document

Judgments citing CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal

Shri Chandrabhan Singh Choudhary, Chhindwara vs. The DCIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed on ground no

ITA 170/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…The Ld. AR placing reliance on the various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Court and Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal including judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal (2008) 298 ITR 277(MP) submitted that the assessee’s sole activities of sale of land did not constitute business or adventure in nature of trade, and the income arising from sale proceed of the said land was only capital gain. He was further submitted there is no regular activity of selling and purchasing of the land, there is nothing on the record to show that the…

M/S. Chandra Prakash Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Hapur

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 3032/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sh. Chandra Prakash Goel, C/O- M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Hapur Extension, Part-I, New Delhi Pan : Aatpg4288R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/02/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad For Assessment Year 2010-11, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…upport of the contention he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT Vs. Sohan Khan 304 ITR 194(Raj), decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suresh Chander Goyal, 298 ITR 277 (MP), decision of Tribunal, Ranchi SMC bench in the case of Rajesh Kumar Kabra Vs. ITO , 93 TTJ 252. 3.7 Alternatively, the Ld. AR also submitted that even if the contention of the Revenue that the assessee had carried on adventure in the nature of business, is accepted then the capital asset is required to be converted into a stock in trade in t…

T.D.Rajan vs. ITO

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1588/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & 1. Shri T D Satyan (Huf), Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (Huf) Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent

For Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, ACIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 263Section 54F

…tel etc. The subsequent investment of the assessee of the sale proceedings will not change the character of the sale activity of the agricultural land. 11. Before the CIT, the assessee relied upon various decisions. In the case of CIT Vs Sureshchand Goyal(MP) 298 ITR 277, the Hon’ble Madhaya Pradesh High Court has observed and held that the land was received by the assessee as gift and the land was developed and sold after converting into plots with a view to secure a better price. Therefore, it was held that the isolated activity could not come within the purview of adventure in the nature of trade and business.…

T.D.Satyan vs. ITO

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1587/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, ACIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 263Section 54F

Xl Telcom Pvt Ltd vs. Commner of Incometax Hd

In the result, this appeal is found

ITTA/38/2001HC Telangana03 Jul 2013

Section 139Section 260ASection 27

…was submitted by Shri Jain that in these appeals, tax affect is less than Rs.2 lakh and may be dismissed only on this ground. He has relied on the two Division Bench judgments of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Suresh Chand Goyal [(2008) 298 ITR 277 (MP)] and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel & Co. [(2009) 317 ITR 386 (MP)] in support of his contention. Shri Lal learned counsel appearing for the appellant though opposed the aforesaid prayer but could not refute the contention of the appellant that by the Board instructions No.1979 dated 2…