CIT v. Sushila Devi Jain

259 ITR 671High Court2003#7523 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sushila Devi Jain

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

…ohideen [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 & Cold Storage [2005] 281 ITR 354 (Allahabad) xi. Deputy CIT v. Smt. Thankamma Simon [2015] 55 taxmann.com 331 (Cochin — Trib.) 8. On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that the said land was allotted to assessee by KIADB in order to facilitate assessee for contructing medical labs and cancer hospital. T…

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.

…and which was capital asset and the Tribunal has not found that same was converted in stock-in trade , the profit on sale of such property is rightly held to be assessable as capital gains. Learned Counsel relied in the case of CIT v. Sushila Devi Jain [2003] 259 ITR 671 (P&H) It is true that even a single venture could be regarded as a trade or business but there have to be circumstances which should give rise to such a conclusion. There were no such circumstances existing in the instant case. What is necessary is to find out the intention of the assessee at the time of the purchase of the land. In the instant c…

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

…which was capital asset and the Tribunal has not found that same was converted in stock-in trade , the profit on sale of such property is rightly held to be assessable as capital gains. The Learned Counsel relied in the case of CIT v. Sushila Devi Jain [2003] 259 ITR 671 (P&H) It is true that even a single venture could be regarded as a trade or business but Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 19 of 34 there have to be circumstances which should give rise to such a conclusion. There were no such circumstances existing in the instant…

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

…which was capital asset and the Tribunal has not found that same was converted in stock-in trade , the profit on sale of such property is rightly held to be assessable as capital gains. The Learned Counsel relied in the case of CIT v. Sushila Devi Jain [2003] 259 ITR 671 (P&H) It is true that even a single venture could be regarded as a trade or business but Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 19 of 34 there have to be circumstances which should give rise to such a conclusion. There were no such circumstances existing in the instant…

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

…which was capital asset and the Tribunal has not found that same was converted in stock-in trade , the profit on sale of such property is rightly held to be assessable as capital gains. The Learned Counsel relied in the case of CIT v. Sushila Devi Jain [2003] 259 ITR 671 (P&H) It is true that even a single venture could be regarded as a trade or business but Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 19 of 34 there have to be circumstances which should give rise to such a conclusion. There were no such circumstances existing in the instant…

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

…which was capital asset and the Tribunal has not found that same was converted in stock-in trade , the profit on sale of such property is rightly held to be assessable as capital gains. The Learned Counsel relied in the case of CIT v. Sushila Devi Jain [2003] 259 ITR 671 (P&H) It is true that even a single venture could be regarded as a trade or business but Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 19 of 34 there have to be circumstances which should give rise to such a conclusion. There were no such circumstances existing in the instant…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. JAGJIT KAUR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6036/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs. Smt. Jagjit Kaur Circle – 41 (1) H. No.09, Opposite Guru New Delhi Nanak Public School, West Avenue Road, New Delhi-110026 Pan No. Agepk1858Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…retaining of immovable property does not ; determine the nature but the intension of purchase of such property determined the status and nature of such property. It was further held by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Sushila Devi Jain (2001) 259 ITR 671 that it was necessary to determine the intension of Assessee at the time of purchase of land and property should be considered. Therefore, keeping in view, the ratio of judgements of various courts laws of higher authorities and Hon’ble Courts I incline to agree with the contention of Ld.AR and delete the additions of Rs.22,28,430/- made on accou…

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)

….568/Ind/2016] [Smt. Sangeeta Nayar, New Delhi] [ITA No.568/Ind/2016] [Smt. Sangeeta Nayar, New Delhi] 6. The Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Sushila Devi Jain (2003) 259 ITR 671, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: “2. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the department and find no ground to entertain the appeal. The Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) have both rightly held that the sale of land by the assessee was not in the nature of business because there is no continuous activity. It is tru…

MRS. JAGJIT KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2265/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. M.S. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

…etaining p of immovable property does not determine the nature but the intension of purchase of such property determined the status and nature of such property. It was further held by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sushila Devi Jain (2001) 259 ITR 671 that it was necessary to determine the intention of assessee at the time of purchase of land and property should be considered. Therefore, keeping in view, the ratio of judgments of various courts law of higher authorities and Hon’ble Courts. I incline to agree with the contention of Ld.AR and delete the addition of Rs.33,47,778/- made on account…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS JAGJIT KAUR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5994/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR
Section 148

…retaining of immovable property does not determine the nature but the intension of purchase of such property determined the status and nature of such property. It was further held by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sushila Devi Jain (2001) 259 ITR 671 that it was necessary to determine the intention of assessee at the time of purchase of land and property should be considered. Therefore, keeping in view, the ratio of judgements of various courts law of higher authorities and Hon’ble Courts I incline to agree with the contention of Ld.AR and delete the addition of Rs.33,47,778/- made on account…

MEGA CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,CHENNAI vs. ACIT(OSD), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3255/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Nandakumar, JCIT
Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 3254/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 KAKB Developers, The Income-tax Officer Now 10 & 11, Dr. Radhakrishnan v. 3(4), Corporate Range – 5, Salai, Chennai City Centre, Chennai - 34. 4th floor, Mylapore, (""यथ"/Respondent) Chennai – 600 004. PAN AASFM3707C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 3255/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /…

KAKB DEVELOPERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW 3 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3254/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Nandakumar, JCIT
Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 3254/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 KAKB Developers, The Income-tax Officer Now 10 & 11, Dr. Radhakrishnan v. 3(4), Corporate Range – 5, Salai, Chennai City Centre, Chennai - 34. 4th floor, Mylapore, (""यथ"/Respondent) Chennai – 600 004. PAN AASFM3707C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 3255/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 94/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: MD.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ed by the following judicial decisions on which reliance was placed by the Ld. AIR in his written submissions. i) CIT Vs. Mohakampur Ice & Cold Storage (281 ITR 354) (All) (2006) ii) CIT Vs. Smr. Radha Bai 272 ITR 264 (Del) (2005) iii) CIT Vs. Sushila Devijan(259 ITR 671 (P & H) (2003) iv) CIT Vs. Trivedi (V.A) (1721TR 95 (Bom) 1998” 29. The CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Kolkata in ITA No.92/Kol/2010 dated 13.4.2011 in the case of DCIT Vs. Machino Techno Sales Ltd., wherein on identical facts the Tribunal held that the gain in question was to be construed as “Capital Gain” and not “Income f…

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

…come within the purview of adventure in the nature of trade and business. The earning of sale in the land was in the nature of capital gains and therefore, not assessable as income from business. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs Sushila Devi (P&H High Court) 259 ITR 671 the Hon’ble P&H High Court held that the land was ITA Nos.1587 & 1588/Bang/2013 Shri T.D.Satyan(HUF) & Shri T.D.Rajan (HUF) Page 10 of 17 never purchased by the assessee as the land was acquired on the basis of a will on the death of her husband. She sold the same in parcels because the huge area could not be sold in one transaction. Such an acti…

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

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

…come within the purview of adventure in the nature of trade and business. The earning of sale in the land was in the nature of capital gains and therefore, not assessable as income from business. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs Sushila Devi (P&H High Court) 259 ITR 671 the Hon’ble P&H High Court held that the land was ITA Nos.1587 & 1588/Bang/2013 Shri T.D.Satyan(HUF) & Shri T.D.Rajan (HUF) Page 10 of 17 never purchased by the assessee as the land was acquired on the basis of a will on the death of her husband. She sold the same in parcels because the huge area could not be sold in one transaction. Such an acti…