Karumuru Venkata Ramanadham v. Commissioner of Income-tax10 (234 ITR 813)

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…e incurred in the normal course of business and therefore to be allowed as business loss. The ld. AR in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of L.M. Devere, Liquidator of Bank of Karal Limited vs. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 813 (Bom.). 12. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that only when the assets are held as stock-in-trade, the loss or gain arising from the sale of such assets can be treated as Business Income. The ld. DR further submitted that the assessee has capitalized the assets as investments and mere fact that no depreciation is claimed cannot be the reaso…

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…e incurred in the normal course of business and therefore to be allowed as business loss. The ld. AR in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of L.M. Devere, Liquidator of Bank of Karal Limited vs. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 813 (Bom.). 12. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that only when the assets are held as stock-in-trade, the loss or gain arising from the sale of such assets can be treated as Business Income. The ld. DR further submitted that the assessee has capitalized the assets as investments and mere fact that no depreciation is claimed cannot be the reas…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Ing Vysya Bank Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/221/2015HC Karnataka08 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 260Section 263

…n L.M. Devare that the properties continued to be 'Stock in trade'. Shri. Shankar has also relied upon Karumuru Venkata Ramanadham Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax10 in support of the same 8 (1998) 234 ITR 813 (Bom.) 9 (1961) 42 ITR 576 10 (1964) 52 ITR 742 I.T.A No.221/2015 15 proposition that the properties acquired by the Bank should be treated as 'Stock in trade'. 16. In view of the above, we hold…

Vita Urban Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd., Sangli vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2390/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2390/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…in case any excess money was received on sale of property, then the same had to go to the owners i.e. diversion by overriding title. He placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court L M Devare, Liquidator of Bank of Karad Ltd. (1998) 234 ITR 813 (Bom). 5 Vita Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 8. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of authorities below and pointed out that property was not auctioned by the assessee but was purchased in the first instance and then, sold in the market. Hence, the Assessing Officer taxed th…

Langdon & Seah Consulting India Private Limited

The appeal is dismissed

COP/221/2015HC Karnataka29 Jan 2016

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI