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.

How many judgments cite Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT?

54 judgments on BharatTax cite Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT (42 ITR 179), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 48, Section 131, Section 133(6), Section 148.

Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT (42 ITR 179)

DCIT, Chennai vs. A.Sivasankar, Chennai

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

ITA 951/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

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…

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 620/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…

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 619/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…

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 618/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2009-10

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…

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 617/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

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…

Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5701/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akkhade

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ed at making a profit and hence the proviso has no application, Mr. Dave has placed reliance on several decision viz., the decisions in the case of Currimbhoy Ebrahim (1 ITR 341), Shaw Wallace (AIR 1932 PC 138), Masagaon Dock (34 ITR 368), Raja Rameshwar Rao (42 ITR 179), Meera Khan (73 ITR 735), Maharashtra Industrial Development Corp. v/s. Commissioner of Service Tax -I (2014 TIOL 1809 CESTAT MUM) and Murasoli Trust [2016] 156 ITD 761 (Chennai Trib.). All these decisions have no bearing on the issue that arises on the facts of the present case. The following decisions cited, by him are quite relevant, which we…

Shri.Babulal, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Wad-2(2)(4), Bangalore

ITA 887/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice-Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Soumya K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Jr. Standing Counsel

Section 54Section 54F

…aj ITA No.282/2002 dated 6.12.2007 and ITAT Rajkot Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Narendra J.Bhimani ITA No.411/Rjt/2012 dated 31.1.2018. The learned DR Page 4 of 9 relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja J.Rameshwar Rao Vs. CIT 42 ITR 179 (SC) wherein it was held that when a person acquires land with a view to selling it later after developing it, he is carrying on an activity resulting in profit, and the activity can only be described as a business venture. Where the person goes further and divides the land into plots, develops the area to make it more attractive and sells the lan…

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

…natively submitted that this may be treated as a single business venture and difference between sale price and cost price should be taxed as business income placing reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raja J. Rameswaram vs CIT reported in 42 ITR 179. 3.2. Ld.CIT(A) rejected submissions made by assessee and upheld observations of Ld.AO that, the transaction does not attract capital gains and that, it is in the nature of single venture of business. Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that and agricultural land can also be stock in trade. He held the transaction to be colourable device to avoid taxatio…

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

…natively submitted that this may be treated as a single business venture and difference between sale price and cost price should be taxed as business income placing reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raja J. Rameswaram vs CIT reported in 42 ITR 179. 3.2. Ld.CIT(A) rejected submissions made by assessee and upheld observations of Ld.AO that, the transaction does not attract capital gains and that, it is in the nature of single venture of business. Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that and agricultural land can also be stock in trade. He held the transaction to be colourable device to avoid taxatio…

Ravindra Joma Bhagat, Raigad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1246/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Pramod Kumar Parida and Jitendra NaharFor Respondent: Smt. Amrita Mishra and Shri S.B. Prasad

Section 133A

…s from business or profession from sale of land in question". 13. From all the above facts, it is clear that the transactions of this land was adventure in the nature of trade and Apex Court in the case of Raja J. Rameshwar Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [42 ITR 179 SC] has stated as under: "In our opinion, the High Court answered the question correctly. No doubt, this was only a single venture; but even a single venture may be regarded as in the nature of trade or business. When a person acquires land with a view to selling it later after the developing it, he is carrying on an activity resulting in profit,…

Shri Subhash Chand Khandelwal, Nagar Palika Ki Gali Rajgarh, C/O- Jain & Co. 228, City Centre, S.C. Road, Jaipur-2368066, Alwar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Alwar, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 530/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke Shri Subhash Chand Khandelwal The Pr.Cit Vs. Nagar Palika Ki Gali, Rajgarh, Alwar Alwar Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@P An/Gir No.: Dmapk 5188 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta & Shri S.L.Jain ,Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Manisha Chandra, Cit- Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13 /12/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Of Ld. Pr.Cit, Alwar Dated 19-02-2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta &For Respondent: Smt. Manisha Chandra, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 236Section 263Section 45(2)

…otting to 59 different persons 8 Shri Subhash Chand Khandelwal vs Pr.CIT, Alwar and offered capital gain thereon for taxation, however, in view of the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raja J Rameshwawr Rao vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1961) 42 ITR 179 (SC) – the nature of such transaction should have been judged as business income instead of capital gain after computing capital gain u/s 45(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on conversion of capital assets into ‘’stock in trade.’’ Thus it is clear that the ld. Pr.CIT invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act only in respect of capital gains decla…

Late Shri Ramavtar Gupta L/H Smt. Shanti Devi C/O- Jain & Co.228, City Centre, S.C. Road, Jaipur-2368066, Jaipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Alwar, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 529/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke Late Shri Ramavtar Gupta The Pr.Cit Vs. L/H Smt.Shanti Devi, 82, Nagar Palika Ki Alwar Gali, Rajgarh, Alwar Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@P An/Gir No.: Bdgpr 3689 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta & Shri S.L.Jain ,Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta, Cit- Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13 /12/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Of Ld. Pr.Cit, Alwar Dated 18-02-2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 236Section 263Section 45(2)

…ord that you had sold your ancestral property by plotting to 59 different persons and offered capital gain thereon for taxation, however, in view of the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cas e of Raja J Rameshwawr Rao vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1961) 42 ITR 179 (SC) – the nature of such transaction should have been judged as business income instead of capital gain, after computing capital gain u/s 45(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on conversion of capital assets into ‘’stock in trade.’’ Thus it is clear that the ld. Pr.CIT invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act only in respect of capital gains decl…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2127/AHD/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…plot in nine number of sales and this not mere activity of sales and time duration is of five years. Therefore, the AO was justified in treating the transaction as business income. The ld. Sr. D.R. also relied in the case of Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT [196] 42 ITR 179 (SC) wherein it was held that were a person acquired land with a view to selling it later after developing it, he is carrying on activity of resulting in profit, and the activity can be described as business venture. The ld. Sr. D.R. relied in the case of Ramswroop Saudagar v. ITO [I.T.A.No. 329/JP/2017, dated 22.02.2018] Jaipur Tribunal wherein l…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2125/AHD/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…plot in nine number of sales and this not mere activity of sales and time duration is of five years. Therefore, the AO was justified in treating the transaction as business income. The ld. Sr. D.R. also relied in the case of Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT [196] 42 ITR 179 (SC) wherein it was held that were a person acquired land with a view to selling it later after developing it, he is carrying on activity of resulting in profit, and the activity can be described as business venture. The ld. Sr. D.R. relied in the case of Ramswroop Saudagar v. ITO [I.T.A.No. 329/JP/2017, dated 22.02.2018] Jaipur Tribunal wherein l…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2123/AHD/2014[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…plot in nine number of sales and this not mere activity of sales and time duration is of five years. Therefore, the AO was justified in treating the transaction as business income. The ld. Sr. D.R. also relied in the case of Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT [196] 42 ITR 179 (SC) wherein it was held that were a person acquired land with a view to selling it later after developing it, he is carrying on activity of resulting in profit, and the activity can be described as business venture. The ld. Sr. D.R. relied in the case of Ramswroop Saudagar v. ITO [I.T.A.No. 329/JP/2017, dated 22.02.2018] Jaipur Tribunal wherein l…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1637/AHD/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…plot in nine number of sales and this not mere activity of sales and time duration is of five years. Therefore, the AO was justified in treating the transaction as business income. The ld. Sr. D.R. also relied in the case of Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT [196] 42 ITR 179 (SC) wherein it was held that were a person acquired land with a view to selling it later after developing it, he is carrying on activity of resulting in profit, and the activity can be described as business venture. The ld. Sr. D.R. relied in the case of Ramswroop Saudagar v. ITO [I.T.A.No. 329/JP/2017, dated 22.02.2018] Jaipur Tribunal wherein l…

Harshadkumar Amrutlal Patel, Mehsana vs. DCIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

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

ITA 361/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 361/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R

…bit of Section 2(13) of the Act having regard to fact situation. A single plunge theory thus cannot be applied as held in several judicial precedents. A reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raja J. Rameshwar Rao vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 179 (SC) in this regard where the fact situation is quite similar. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarded the activity to be a ‘business venture’ where a person acquires land with a view to selling it later after developing it and after making the area more active. The assessee in the present case has done somewhat similar things with a rath…

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…elling the same to different persons would amount to adventure in the nature of trade and the profit on sale of land was to be assessed as income from business. The Assessing officer also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Raja J Rameswar Rao V CIT (42 ITR 179), Indramani Bai & Another vs. Addl CIT (200 ITR 594) and in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (35 ITR 594). On appeal filed by the Assessee, the CIT (A) allowed the claim of the assessee. On appeal by the Dept. before ITAT, the Tribunal held that "to consider the transaction as I.T.A. Nos.494 - 497/Coch/2018 business transaction, the intentio…

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…elling the same to different persons would amount to adventure in the nature of trade and the profit on sale of land was to be assessed as income from business. The Assessing officer also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Raja J Rameswar Rao V CIT (42 ITR 179), Indramani Bai & Another vs. Addl CIT (200 ITR 594) and in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (35 ITR 594). On appeal filed by the Assessee, the CIT (A) allowed the claim of the assessee. On appeal by the Dept. before ITAT, the Tribunal held that "to consider the transaction as I.T.A. Nos.494 - 497/Coch/2018 business transaction, the intentio…

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 495/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…elling the same to different persons would amount to adventure in the nature of trade and the profit on sale of land was to be assessed as income from business. The Assessing officer also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Raja J Rameswar Rao V CIT (42 ITR 179), Indramani Bai & Another vs. Addl CIT (200 ITR 594) and in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (35 ITR 594). On appeal filed by the Assessee, the CIT (A) allowed the claim of the assessee. On appeal by the Dept. before ITAT, the Tribunal held that "to consider the transaction as I.T.A. Nos.494 - 497/Coch/2018 business transaction, the intentio…

Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT

DCIT, Chennai vs. A.Sivasankar, Chennai

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai

Shri.Babulal, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Wad-2(2)(4), Bangalore

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

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

Ravindra Joma Bhagat, Raigad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Panvel

Shri Subhash Chand Khandelwal, Nagar Palika Ki Gali Rajgarh, C/O- Jain & Co. 228, City Centre, S.C. Road, Jaipur-2368066, Alwar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Alwar, Alwar

Late Shri Ramavtar Gupta L/H Smt. Shanti Devi C/O- Jain & Co.228, City Centre, S.C. Road, Jaipur-2368066, Jaipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Alwar, Alwar

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

Harshadkumar Amrutlal Patel, Mehsana vs. DCIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur

The ACIT, Trichur vs. Sri.Arun Majeed, Thrissur