Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT

42 ITR 179Supreme Court of India1961#2133 most cited

What is Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT authority for?

A transaction, even if appearing to be in the capital field or recorded as such, can constitute an 'adventure in the nature of trade,' leading to taxable income from business rather than capital gains.

54

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Raja J. Rameshwar Rao · 42 ITR 179 · adventure in the nature of trade · business income · capital gains · section 45 · recharacterization of income · capital asset · profit from transaction · trade vs investment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 48Section 131Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44ADSection 45

Issues it is cited on

section 45(1)transfer of capital assetsection 45section 149(1)(b)section 2(14)kelvinatorsection 22section 2(15)short term capital gainadmission of additional evidencesection 44adchange of opinion

Judgments citing Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…grieved by the order of the ITAT, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. By referring to the decision in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC) and in the case of Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 179 (SC) as well as considering the CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 19.12.2008, extracting relevant para 2 of the said circular at para 32 of the above decision, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to hold that the profit from sale of land owned by the assessee, an educational trust, could not be treated as business income and was eligible for exemp…

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

ITA 1667/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…grieved by the order of the ITAT, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. By referring to the decision in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC) and in the case of Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 179 (SC) as well as considering the CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 19.12.2008, extracting relevant para 2 of the said circular at para 32 of the above decision, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold that the profit from sale of land owned by the assessee, an educational trust, could not be treated as business income and was eligible for exemp…

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

…be a transaction in the capital field for the standalone reason that it was recorded as such in its books of account. The A.O. supported his aforesaid view by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Vs. J. Rameswar Rao, CIT 42 ITR 179 (SC). The A.O. based on his aforesaid deliberations, re- characterized the profit/income of Rs.13.26 crores (supra) that was originally disclosed by the assessee company as exempt income, and was accepted as such by his predecessor while framing the original assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 20.04.2009, as the business…

AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

ITA 597/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 44A

…nsaction can be treated as adventure in the nature of trade. I rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases for the above proportion. 1. Smt Indramani Bai (70 ITR 67) 2. G. Ventakaswami Naidu & Co. (35 ITR 594) 3. Raja.J.Rameshwar Rao (42 ITR 179) 4. Janaki Ram Bahadur Ram (57 ITR 21) 5. Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh (77 ITR 253) Hence, alternatively Rs.36,50,000/- must be treated as income from business.” 6. Aggrieved against the appellate order the assessee Sri. Piyush M Dobariya is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 595/Ahd/2020: 1. The Ld. CIT…

SHRI AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

ITA 596/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 44A

…nsaction can be treated as adventure in the nature of trade. I rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases for the above proportion. 1. Smt Indramani Bai (70 ITR 67) 2. G. Ventakaswami Naidu & Co. (35 ITR 594) 3. Raja.J.Rameshwar Rao (42 ITR 179) 4. Janaki Ram Bahadur Ram (57 ITR 21) 5. Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh (77 ITR 253) Hence, alternatively Rs.36,50,000/- must be treated as income from business.” 6. Aggrieved against the appellate order the assessee Sri. Piyush M Dobariya is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 595/Ahd/2020: 1. The Ld. CIT…

SHRI PIYUSH M DOBARIYA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

ITA 595/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 44A

…nsaction can be treated as adventure in the nature of trade. I rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases for the above proportion. 1. Smt Indramani Bai (70 ITR 67) 2. G. Ventakaswami Naidu & Co. (35 ITR 594) 3. Raja.J.Rameshwar Rao (42 ITR 179) 4. Janaki Ram Bahadur Ram (57 ITR 21) 5. Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh (77 ITR 253) Hence, alternatively Rs.36,50,000/- must be treated as income from business.” 6. Aggrieved against the appellate order the assessee Sri. Piyush M Dobariya is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 595/Ahd/2020: 1. The Ld. CIT…

NITHIN PANDURANG DHOND,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 661/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 48

…ed and evaluated in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 6. The assessee also relied upon the following decisions:-  Atonso Real Estate Developers vs. CIT (425 ITR 153)  CIT vs. Shahrooq Ali Khan (370 ITR 246)  Raja Rameshwar Rao vs. CIT (42 ITR 179) 7. However, the ld. CIT (A) distinguished the judgments and upheld the order of the ld. AO after observing as under:- “6.1.4 The provisions of section 45(2) is a charging section for capital gains. Section 2(47)(iv) of the Income-tax Act provides that any conversion of capital assets into stock-in-trade shall be regarded as a transfer. Therefore…

ANITA LODHA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT - 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

19. In view of the above findings, this appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be allowed

ITA 46/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 253Section 263

…on 10.04.2021 declaring an income of Rs. 22,03,530/-. Same income was declared by her in the return initially filed. This is also not in dispute. 11. Record reveals that in the impugned order, Learned PCIT referred to decision in case of Rameshwar Rao Vs CIT, 42 ITR 179, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a person acquires land with a view to selling it after developing, he carries on an activity resulting in profit and the activity could only be described as business venture. On same point, Learned PCIT also relied upon decision in case Indramani Bai & Another Vs Addl. CIT (SC),200 ITR 594. Learned PCI…

DCIT -26(1) , MUMBAI vs. SHREYAS BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2404/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-17(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Builders Room No. 117, 1St Floor, G- A-42, 4Th Floor Roop Vs. Block, Kautliya Bhavan, Darshan, Juhu Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfs5485E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Cit,Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Revenue Has Agitated The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Therefore The Plot Of Land Held By It Was In Nature Of ‘Stock-In-Trade’ As Opposed To The Ao’S Action Of Holding The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’. According To Revenue Therefore, Since The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’, The Levy Of Capital Gains Tax Stood Triggered Upon Execution Of Joint Development Agreement (Herein

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule (CIT,DR)
Section 2(47)(v)

…e application of any abstract rule, principle or test and must in every case depend upon all the relevant facts and circumstances.” 14. We note that, similar aspect was again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja J Rameshwar Rao Vs CIT (42 ITR 179) wherein the Hon’ble Court had held as under :- “5. In this appeal, we are only concerned with the first question, because if that question be answered in the affirmative, as did the High Court, the second question would not arise. It was contended that whether there was a business and profit from it was not a question of pure fact but a mixed qu…

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 193/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 268A

…the property sold was utilized, it was explained by him (PB pg. 25) that the same was for the purchase of land and construction thereon, for being similarly let, yielding rental income, duly returned as IFHP. The decision in Raja J. Rameshwar Raov. CIT[1961] 42 ITR 179 (SC), relied upon by the Revenue, was distinguishable inasmuch as in that case it was found as a fact that the assessee had acquired land with a view to sell it later, resulting in profit from an activity that could only be described as a business activity and, income there-from, thus, business income. Further, reliance was placed by him on the de…

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 192/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 268A

…the property sold was utilized, it was explained by him (PB pg. 25) that the same was for the purchase of land and construction thereon, for being similarly let, yielding rental income, duly returned as IFHP. The decision in Raja J. Rameshwar Raov. CIT[1961] 42 ITR 179 (SC), relied upon by the Revenue, was distinguishable inasmuch as in that case it was found as a fact that the assessee had acquired land with a view to sell it later, resulting in profit from an activity that could only be described as a business activity and, income there-from, thus, business income. Further, reliance was placed by him on the de…

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2485/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

…) 30 taxmann.com 63 (Mad.) 4. Kohli Estates (P.) Ltd v. ITo [2020] 183 lTD 650 (Del Trib.) 5. G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT 11959135 FIR 594 (SC) 6. CIT v. Mohakampur Ice & Cold Storage 12-0051281 [FR 354 (Allahabad) 7. Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 179 (SC) 8. CIT v. R. Ramaiah ] 9841 146 ITR 39 (Kar) 9. CIT v. Gopal Purohit [2010] 336 ITR 287 (Born.) 10. Suni I Kurnar Ganeriwal v. DCIT [2011] 134 lTD 179 (Mum - Trib.) 11. Principle of consistency should be accepted Radhasoami Salsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) 12. CIT v. Dairnia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd [2006] 281 ITR 346 (Del.) 13. CIT…

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2484/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

…) 30 taxmann.com 63 (Mad.) 4. Kohli Estates (P.) Ltd v. ITo [2020] 183 lTD 650 (Del Trib.) 5. G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT 11959135 FIR 594 (SC) 6. CIT v. Mohakampur Ice & Cold Storage 12-0051281 [FR 354 (Allahabad) 7. Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 179 (SC) 8. CIT v. R. Ramaiah ] 9841 146 ITR 39 (Kar) 9. CIT v. Gopal Purohit [2010] 336 ITR 287 (Born.) 10. Suni I Kurnar Ganeriwal v. DCIT [2011] 134 lTD 179 (Mum - Trib.) 11. Principle of consistency should be accepted Radhasoami Salsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) 12. CIT v. Dairnia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd [2006] 281 ITR 346 (Del.) 13. CIT…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 MUMBAI vs. GLOWSHINE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR

C.A. No.-002565-002565 - 2022Supreme Court04 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 142(1)Section 50C

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2565 OF 2022 Commissioner of Income ...Appellant(s) Tax 8 Mumbai Versus Glowshine Builders & …Respondent(s) Developers Pvt. Ltd. J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Income Tax Appeal No. 1756 of 2014, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by Page 1 of 44 Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.05.04 16:38:34 IST Reason: S…

TARUN HARSHI MOTTA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2602/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyaltarun Harshi Motta, 9 Square, Ramdas Sutrale Marg, Off. Chandavarkar Lane, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400092. Pan: Aaepm9064A ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Central Circle-6(1), Room No. 1905, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hitesh M. ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, Sr. DR
Section 250

…under consideration and what discussed therein are altogether different. Revenue relied up on following decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court along with coordinate bench, Ahmadabad as under: i). Raja J. Rameshwar Rao vs. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 179 (SC.) II). CIT vs. R. Ramaiah [1984] 17 Taxman 164 (Kar.) iii). HarshadkumarAmrutlal Patel vs. DCIT, Mehsana [2019] 111 taxmann.com 13. Case laws relied up on by the assessee are found to be relevant and exactly on the issue under consideration. Assessee relied up on following case laws as under: i). CIT vs. AhmedbhaiUmarbhai& Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT vs. SWASTIK ENTERPRISES, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are allowed

ITA 173/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., Swastik Enterprises, Circle-2(3), R.S. No. 130, F.P. 36, T.P.S. 37, Vs. Surat. Behind Althan Gam, Althan, Surat. Pan No. Aakfm 1069 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) D.C.I.T., Swastik Enterprises, Circle-2(3), R.S. No. 130, F.P. 36, T.P.S. 37, Vs. Surat. Behind Althan Gam, Althan, Surat. PAN No. AAKFM 1069 M Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Department represented by Shri H.P. Meena CIT-DR Assessee represented by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Date of hearing 07/09/2022 Date of pronouncement 15/11/2022 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the revenue is directed…

SRI. G.S. SHIVANNA(HUF),BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-4, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. G. S. Shivanna (Huf), Pcit, Vs. No.3, Basaveshwara Nilaya, Bengaluru – 4, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaahg 7097 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish S, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Satish S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…f property. During the previous year under consideration, the assessee has sold 7 residential plots after getting the land converted for non-agricultural use. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Course in the case of Raja J. Rameshwar Rao vs CIT [1961] 42 ITR 179 and the decision of jurisdictional High Course in the case of R. Ramaiah and others [1984] 146 ITR 39 (Kar) there is a possibility of holding these transaction as adventure in the nature of trade and taxing the income from the sale of plots as the income from business. However, no enquiries in this regards has been made by the AO. Therefore, it is…

PANKAJ L. DESAI,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (5),, SOLAPUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1192/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1192/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pankaj D. Desai, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(5), Solapur. Pankaj Laxmikant Desai, 3997, Bhavani Peth, Barshi Dist.- Solapur- 413401 Pan : Aarpd6535C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By Shri M. G. Jasnani : Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Cit(A)-9, Pune’S Order Dated 23.01.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-6- Trf. From/Cit(A)-9 Trf. In/10466/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. Coming To The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance That Both The Learned Lower Authorities Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Assessing Him For Having Derived Business Income & Not Capital

For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)Section 250

…worked out his share of capital loss at Rs. 4,49,180/-. The AO rejected the appellant’s claim under the Long term Capital Gain and treated the sale transactions as Business transactions by relying on the following case laws: A. Raja J. Rameshwar rao Vs. CIT (42 ITR 179) B. G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. Vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) “ The activity of an assessee in dividing the land into plots and not selling it as a single unit as he purchased goes to establish that he was carrying on business in real property and it is business venture” The AO has also placed his reliance on the wealth tax return filed by the ap…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. A.SIVASANKAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 953/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…udicial decisions as below. When a person acquires land with a view to selling it later after developing the same, he is carrying on activity resulting in profit and the activity can only be described as a business venture. Raja J. Rameswar Rao Vs. CIT (SC) 42 ITR 179 Joint purchase of land by 4 persons and joint sale thereof within a period of 15 months - Land fit only for house sites - Adventure in the nature of trade. There was no intention to use such large piece of land for constructing their houses - Business income. Smt. Parvathi Devi & Ors. Vs. CIT (AP) 164 ITR 675 Sale of land after plotting - Busin…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. A.SIVASANKAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 952/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…udicial decisions as below. When a person acquires land with a view to selling it later after developing the same, he is carrying on activity resulting in profit and the activity can only be described as a business venture. Raja J. Rameswar Rao Vs. CIT (SC) 42 ITR 179 Joint purchase of land by 4 persons and joint sale thereof within a period of 15 months - Land fit only for house sites - Adventure in the nature of trade. There was no intention to use such large piece of land for constructing their houses - Business income. Smt. Parvathi Devi & Ors. Vs. CIT (AP) 164 ITR 675 Sale of land after plotting - Busin…

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT (42 ITR 179) — Cited in 54 Judgments | BharatTax