Shanti Builders v. JCIT (Pune)

88 TTJ 519Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#25809 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing Shanti Builders v. JCIT (Pune)

Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B.Koli, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 45(3)Section 54F

…on the normal lines of its business with a view to parcel it out into plots as sites for houses and commercial buildings". 12. She further took us through the CIT(A) order wherein the decision of Pune ITAT in the case of Shanti Builders vs JCIT (Pune) (2004) 88 TTJ 519 is mentioned holding that even if the land was acquired for the purpose of development and because of its sterilization it cannot be developed, the gain on sale has to be treated as capital gain and not as business income. The Pune ITAT held a under: "At the outset, we are not impressed by the arguments of the learned commissioner in the impugned…

ACIT 28 (2), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S Neel Siddhi Developers, Navi Mumbai

ITA 30/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)

…on the normal lines of its business with a view to parcel it out into plots as sites for houses and commercial buildings". 12. She further took us through the CIT(A) order wherein the decision of Pune ITAT in the case of Shanti Builders vs JCIT (Pune) (2004) 88 TTJ 519 is mentioned holding that even if the land was acquired for the purpose of development and because of its sterilization it cannot be developed, the gain on sale has to be treated as capital gain and not as business income. The Pune ITAT held a under: "At the outset, we are not impressed by the arguments of the learned commissioner in the impugned…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Ranjit Hanmantrao Mohite, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1253/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BathamFor Respondent: Shri Sanket Joshi
Section 143(3)

…se of adverse factors, according to the original intention. It should be taxed as capital gain. Similar view has also been held by the Pune ITAT in the decisions in the case of ITO Vs. Baguio Investment (p) Ltd. 127 TTJ 423 (Pune) and Shant Builders Vs. JCIT, 88 TTJ 519 (Pune). Thus, character of the asset is governed by the motive behind the transaction and in the instant case the facts brought on record never indicated the intention behind the share trading transaction to be for the purpose of investment by the appellant. 3.6 Mere holding of property or investments does not amount to a business. A person, who…

Shanti Builders v. JCIT (Pune) (88 TTJ 519) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax