CIT v. V. Ramaswamy Mudaliar

196 ITR 939High Court1992#12349 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 48

Issues it is cited on

section 43(3)section 251(2)section 2(14)section 48section 45admission of additional evidenceprofits and gains of business or professionsundry creditorssection 251long term capital gainsrevenue expenditurecapital expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. V. Ramaswamy Mudaliar

Shankare Gowda, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Shankare Gowda No.2314/A/1681/A, Behind Bescom Office Subhash Nagara Ito Nelamangala Vs. Ward 4(3)(3) Bengaluru Rural 562 123 Bengaluru Karnataka Pan No : Bozpg9856G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Mohit Ashok Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48

…ty and thirdly, on account of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of property. Admittedly Rs.3,70,00,000/- paid as a compensation was not a part of cost of acquisition. In the case of CIT v. V. Ramaswamy Mudaliar [1992] 196 ITR 939, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that the word 'improve' has various shades of meaning and it includes everything by doing which there is an enhancement in the value of the asset or there is a rise in its price or the asset is made to grow better or it is even followed up by something better. Therefore, we also do not agree with the content…

Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad

ITA 1288/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

…efore, the alleged amount of Rs.8,63,58,527/- claimed as exempt is a manipulated figure to get undue benefit. 16 Further, the argument of the assessee that the self-generated live stock does not have any cost is incorrect. In the case of V. Ramaswamy Mudaliar 196 ITR 939 (Mad), Hon’ble High Court of Madras examined such claim and did not agree with such argument. Dealing with a case where a mare was kept in stud farm to enable bring forth colt and fillies, Court held that though the expenditure was incurred apparently on mare, it was really incurred for the purpose of nurturing protecting and preserving the foetu…

Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad

ITA 1287/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

…efore, the alleged amount of Rs.8,63,58,527/- claimed as exempt is a manipulated figure to get undue benefit. 16 Further, the argument of the assessee that the self-generated live stock does not have any cost is incorrect. In the case of V. Ramaswamy Mudaliar 196 ITR 939 (Mad), Hon’ble High Court of Madras examined such claim and did not agree with such argument. Dealing with a case where a mare was kept in stud farm to enable bring forth colt and fillies, Court held that though the expenditure was incurred apparently on mare, it was really incurred for the purpose of nurturing protecting and preserving the foetu…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad vs. Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad

ITA 1265/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

…efore, the alleged amount of Rs.8,63,58,527/- claimed as exempt is a manipulated figure to get undue benefit. 16 Further, the argument of the assessee that the self-generated live stock does not have any cost is incorrect. In the case of V. Ramaswamy Mudaliar 196 ITR 939 (Mad), Hon’ble High Court of Madras examined such claim and did not agree with such argument. Dealing with a case where a mare was kept in stud farm to enable bring forth colt and fillies, Court held that though the expenditure was incurred apparently on mare, it was really incurred for the purpose of nurturing protecting and preserving the foetu…

Jayant Promoters LLP (Earlier Jayant Promoters Pvt.Ltd), Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -6, Pune

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1243/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1243/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Jayant Promoters Llp (Earlier The Principal Commissioner Jayant Promoters Pvt. Ltd.,), Vs Of Income Tax, Pune – 6. Khandelwal Jain & Associates, . Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, Punbe – 411001. Pan: Aaccj 1265 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal & R G Nahar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Dr Date Of Hearing 06/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Pune’S Order No.Pn/Pcit-6/263/2018-19 Dated 30/05/2018, In Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 263

…e deducted from the value of consideration ITA No.1243/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 (A) received by the assessee. 5.4 Subsequently, the assessee company has relied upon the following judgements in support of its claim. i) CIT Vs. V. Ramaswamy Mudaliar [1992} 196 ITR 939 In the above mentioned case, the Hon.Madras High Court has held as under:- “but for the incurring of the expenditure by the assessee in the proper maintenance of the mare and the colt and the filly, the assessee would not have been able to realise a price of Rs. 50,000 at the time of their sale. The price for which the animals had been sold by t…

DCIT Cen Cir 3, Mumbai vs. Swan Energy Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6662/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6662 & 3870/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2010-11) Dcit Cen Cir 3 M/S Swan Energy Ltd. Room No. 905, Pratistha Formerly Known As Swan Mills Ltd, 2Nd Bhavan, Marines Lines, बिधम/ Mumbai-400020. Floor, Feltham House, Vs. Ballard Estate, J.N. Herdia Marg, Mumbai- 400001. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs7890Q & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5778 & 2924/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2010-11) M/S Swan Energy Ltd. Acit Rg 7(2) Formerly Known As Swan Room No. 626, M. K. बिधम/ Mills Ltd, 2Nd Floor, Feltham Road, Churchgate, Vs. House, Ballard Estate, J.N. Mumbai-400020. Herdia Marg, Mumbai- 400001. अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. J. P. Bairagazd प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Abha Kala Chanda सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27/09/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement M/S Swan Energy Ltd..

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. BairagazdFor Respondent: Ms. Abha Kala Chanda
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6662 & 3870/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2010-11) DCIT Cen Cir 3 M/s Swan Energy Ltd. Room No. 905, Pratistha Formerly Known as Swan Mills Ltd, 2nd Bhavan, Marines Lines, बिधम/ Mumbai-400020. Floor, Feltham House, Vs. Ballard Estate, J.N. Herdia Marg, Mumbai- 400001. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AABCS7890Q & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5778 & 2924/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2010-11) M/s Swan Energy Ltd. ACIT RG 7(2) Formerly Known as S…

ITO 21(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 2247/MUM/2014[2010-1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

…maintenance such as installation of air-conditioner, curtains, lining material, carpentary work, polish work, painting works, windows, electrical work, civil and plumbing work, etc. The assessee placed reliance upon the decision in CIT vs Ramaswamy Mudaliyar (196 ITR 939). The Ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee sold the property after 7 Pritamlal J. Doshi ITA No.1993 & 2247/Mum/2014 almost three years of having incurring the said expenditure, therefore, he rejected the claim of deduction. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) decided against the assessee. The assessee is in…

Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 1993/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

…maintenance such as installation of air-conditioner, curtains, lining material, carpentary work, polish work, painting works, windows, electrical work, civil and plumbing work, etc. The assessee placed reliance upon the decision in CIT vs Ramaswamy Mudaliyar (196 ITR 939). The Ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee sold the property after 7 Pritamlal J. Doshi ITA No.1993 & 2247/Mum/2014 almost three years of having incurring the said expenditure, therefore, he rejected the claim of deduction. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) decided against the assessee. The assessee is in…