Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. v. CIT

258 ITR 261High Court2002#11899 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. v. CIT

Vaijanti Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Vaijanti Jain, Vs Ito, C-407, 2Nd Floor, Saraswati Ward-40(3), Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaafpj5260J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms.Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023

…head Capital Gains and not business income. 9. The issue is squarely covered from a number of decisions of various Courts and Tribunals. Reliance can be placed on the following decisions: High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian Human Pipe Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 195 ITR 386 (Bom) observed that surplus realized on sale of properties cannot be assessed as business profits where they were not purchased with an intention to trade but as investments of surplus investible funds. The present case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Raghu Nath Arora vs. JCIT ITA No. 5494/…

G.Neelavathy, Pondicherry vs. ITO Ward 5, Pondicherry

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2915/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…ess income at Rs.28,26,258/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of AO vide para 5.4 of his order and in para 5.4, he discussed the case law of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. RV Gupta, 258 ITR 261 and the facts of this case, he discussed that the assessee purchased two plots in financial year 2003 and systematically started construction activity on these plots and assessee also employed agents to sell the flats and paid commission. Hence, he agreed with the AO by observing as under:- “In the above facts and circumstances, I hold that the i…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Chandrakant Somabhai Patel (HUF), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1194/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate
Section 250(6)

…vestment and never claimed as business asset hence not claimed any depreciation. Authorized Representative discussed ratio in the case of following case laws : a) 35 ITR 594(SC) G. Venkatswami Naidu & Co. - ratio distinguished by Authorized Representative. b) 195 ITR 386(Bom) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. - ratio distinguished by Authorized Representative. c) Arjundev K. Khanna HUF - Ahmedabad ITAT ITA. No. 1308/Ahd/2008 -- ratio distinguished by Authorized Representative The appellant has relied on the ratio of following case laws : (i) (2013) 40 taxmann.com 161 (Jodhpur ITAT) Marudhar Hotels (P) Ltd. (ii) (2018) 9…

Sri. B.T. Dayananda Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 134/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. K. Gorodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Dilip Junior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 2Section 234A

…d beyond 8 km of BBMP limits. 4.2. As regards treatment of sale of land as adventure in the nature of trade or business, Ld.AR placed reliance on following decisions:  Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd vs CIT reported in 195 ITR 386;  CIT vs RV Gupta reported in 258 ITR 261 Ld.AR submitted that, in facts narrated hereinabove, sale transaction entered into by assessee cannot be treated as adventure in nature of trade, as per section 2 (13) of the Act, and therefore, sale consideration received from sale of said property, cannot be considered as business income. ITANo.134-135/Bang/2012 A.Y.2004-05 & 2007-08 Page 11…

Sri. B.T. Dayananda Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 135/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. K. Gorodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Dilip Junior Standing counsel
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 2Section 234A

…d beyond 8 km of BBMP limits. 4.2. As regards treatment of sale of land as adventure in the nature of trade or business, Ld.AR placed reliance on following decisions:  Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd vs CIT reported in 195 ITR 386;  CIT vs RV Gupta reported in 258 ITR 261 Ld.AR submitted that, in facts narrated hereinabove, sale transaction entered into by assessee cannot be treated as adventure in nature of trade, as per section 2 (13) of the Act, and therefore, sale consideration received from sale of said property, cannot be considered as business income. ITANo.134-135/Bang/2012 A.Y.2004-05 & 2007-08 Page 11…

Mrs.Chanderkala Goenka, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-13(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2411/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhmrs. Chanderkala Goenka Dcit-1 Circle 13(2) Room No.418, 4Th Floor, 15, Shirin Chambers, 348/50, Vs. Samuel Street, Vadgadi, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400003. M.K. Road, Pan: Aajp9512C Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mrs. Renu Kapoor (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Chaitnya Anjaria (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Mrs. Renu Kapoor (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria (DR)
Section 254(1)

…assessee further relied upon the decision Tribunal in ACIT vs. Narendra J. Bhimani (169 ITD 245 (Rajkot Trib.), ITO vs. Mrs. Lilavati M. Dhabaria in ITA No. 6070 & 6144/Mum/2004 dated 27.07.2007, decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. R.V. Gupta [258 ITR 261, CIT vs. B.K. Bhaumik [2000] 245 ITR 615. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of authorities below. The assessee and her co-owner are selling the flat constructed by them on by one. The activities undertaken by assessee are business activity. 7. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gon…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mohinder Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2310/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…ofit or with requisite intention, to bring it within the parameters of a stock-in-trade. The assessee was not a regular dealer in real estate and the transaction was of capital asset only and not a transaction of any stock-in--trade. (ii) CIT vs. R.V. Gupta 258 ITR 261 (Del) In this case assessee a Senior IAS Officer was allotted a plot of land by the DDA jointly with his brother with a stipulation that the allottee(s) should construct a residential house. The assessee constructed six flats and sold four flats retaining remainder two for their own use. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction as adventu…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Arjun Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2309/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…ofit or with requisite intention, to bring it within the parameters of a stock-in-trade. The assessee was not a regular dealer in real estate and the transaction was of capital asset only and not a transaction of any stock-in--trade. (ii) CIT vs. R.V. Gupta 258 ITR 261 (Del) In this case assessee a Senior IAS Officer was allotted a plot of land by the DDA jointly with his brother with a stipulation that the allottee(s) should construct a residential house. The assessee constructed six flats and sold four flats retaining remainder two for their own use. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction as adventu…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahajan Industries P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6295/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhoot, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…builder. As explained by this Court in Shanti Banerjee (deceased) by LRs (supra), after considering the decision in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594, Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 and CIT v. R.V. Gupta (2002) 258 ITR 261, where the construction and sale of the flats do not change the character of the asset and there was no material to show that the Assessee ever had the intention to exploit the plot as a commercial venture, the transaction cannot be characterized as 'an adventure in the nature of trade' leading to the resultant receipt as business income in her h…

Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. v. CIT (258 ITR 261) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax