Hochat Kizhakke Madathil Venkateswara Aiyar v. Kallor Illath Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad. 358

242 CTR 537High Court2011#11344 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Hochat Kizhakke Madathil Venkateswara Aiyar v. Kallor Illath Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad. 358

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Datla Shanti, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस बालाकृ"णन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.33/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. Smt. Datla Shanti, Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AJFPD 6650 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee by : Sri I. Kama Sastry, AR ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue by :…

Sri Chandrashekar Naganagouda Patil, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1984/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Mallaha Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, JCIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1984(Bang)/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Chandrashekar Naganagouda Patil, No.GR2, Lavina Courts 67, 7th Cross, RMV Extension, Sadhashivanagar, Bangalore-560 080 PAN No.ACFPP7579J Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Shri Mallaha Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Priyadarshi Misra, JCIT Date of hearing : 25-06-2020 Date of pronouncement : 29-06-2020 O R D E R PER N.V.VASUDEVA…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. C A Badrinath (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3362/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2015 – 16 C A Badrinath (Huf), No. 57 & 57/4, 1Th Main, Acit, Circle – 2 (2) (1), Vs. Malleswaram, Bangalore Bangalore – 560003. Pan: Aadhc3044B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2020 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Am:

For Appellant: Shree V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 148Section 2Section 54

…e paper Book. Reliance was placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. A. Suresh Rao, 223 taxman 228. He also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. H. Anil Kumar, 242 CTR 537. 4. We have considered rival submissions. We find that it is noted by the AO on page 2 of the assessment order that the JDA was entered on 16.12.2010 and in consideration of transfer of land measuring 2 Acres and 21 Guntas owned by the assessee along with some land of another person, total land 3 Acres 32 Guntas, the assessee was to get Super Bui…

Shri. Dev Kumar Roy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2250/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

…ed and therefore the gain on such relinquishment has to be regarded only as giving raise to capital gain not income from business. 11. In this regard the Assessee placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of H. Anil Kumar (2011) 242 CTR 537 (Karnataka) wherein the facts of the case were that, Assessee had entered Page 7 of 17 into an agreement to purchase immovable property and paid Rs. 1,00,000 as advance amount. He filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The Assessee then withdrew the suit for specific performance in lieu of a payment of Rs. 7,50,000. The…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5460/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…received in connection therewith is liable to capital gains tax: i. CIT vs. Teleservices Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bombay) ii. Hochat Kizhakke Madathil Venkateswara Aiyar vs. Kallor Illath Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad. 358. iii. CIT vs. H. Anil Kumar (2011) 242 CTR 537 (Karnataka) iv. CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) vi. K.R. Srinath vs. ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 436. Ld. AR of the appellant contended that merely because of the fact that the land was sold for profit, it cannot be held that income arising from the said transac…

Kaushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5348/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…received in connection therewith is liable to capital gains tax: i. CIT vs. Teleservices Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bombay) ii. Hochat Kizhakke Madathil Venkateswara Aiyar vs. Kallor Illath Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad. 358. iii. CIT vs. H. Anil Kumar (2011) 242 CTR 537 (Karnataka) iv. CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) vi. K.R. Srinath vs. ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 436. Ld. AR of the appellant contended that merely because of the fact that the land was sold for profit, it cannot be held that income arising from the said transac…

Kaushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4136/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…received in connection therewith is liable to capital gains tax: i. CIT vs. Teleservices Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bombay) ii. Hochat Kizhakke Madathil Venkateswara Aiyar vs. Kallor Illath Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad. 358. iii. CIT vs. H. Anil Kumar (2011) 242 CTR 537 (Karnataka) iv. CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) vi. K.R. Srinath vs. ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 436. Ld. AR of the appellant contended that merely because of the fact that the land was sold for profit, it cannot be held that income arising from the said transac…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2802/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…received in connection therewith is liable to capital gains tax: i. CIT vs. Teleservices Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bombay) ii. Hochat Kizhakke Madathil Venkateswara Aiyar vs. Kallor Illath Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad. 358. iii. CIT vs. H. Anil Kumar (2011) 242 CTR 537 (Karnataka) iv. CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) vi. K.R. Srinath vs. ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 436. Ld. AR of the appellant contended that merely because of the fact that the land was sold for profit, it cannot be held that income arising from the said transac…

Pradeep Kar, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 596/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Geoergeassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 48Section 54

…p Housing Society on their demand and accordingly the flat was constructed and possession of the same was given to the assessee on 22.2.2003. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. H. Anil Kumar, 242 CTR 537, in which it has been held that compensation received for giving up the right to specific agreement of an agreement to sell constitutes, capital gain chargeable to tax; however deduction is allowable as per section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. Heavy reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujar…

Hochat Kizhakke Madathil Venkateswara Aiyar v. Kallor Illath Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad. 358 (242 CTR 537) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax