How many judgments cite Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT?

133 judgments on BharatTax cite Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT (35 ITR 594), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 45, Section 131, Section 142(1), Section 147.

Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT

35 ITR 594Supreme Court of India1959#764 most cited

What is Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT authority for?

A transaction involving the purchase and sale of property can be treated as an adventure in the nature of trade, resulting in gains taxable as income from business rather than capital gains, when the lands were acquired for a company's profit-making purpose.

133

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT · 35 ITR 594 · adventure in the nature of trade · business income · capital gains vs. business income · Section 28 · Section 45 · income classification · property transactions · profit-making scheme

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 45 Section 131 Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 44AD

Issues it is cited on

transfer of capital asset section 45 short term capital gain long term capital gain section 28 previous year transfer income from other sources business company section 142(1)section 143(2)

Judgments citing Venkataswami Naidu & Co. 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)

…stified. The ITAT also confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A). Having aggrieved 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 tr…

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)

…stified. The ITAT also confirmed the order of the Id. CIT(A). Having aggrieved 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 tr…

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 417/JODH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…imilar next figure the Ld AO treated same 57,90,000/- without any supporting or corroborative evidence for substituting the figure by adding a number of zeros at his whims and caprice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co (G) v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594(SC), where it was held that the character of a transaction cannot be determined solely on the application of any abstract rule, principle or test but must depend upon all the facts and circumstances of the case. The addition of Rs. 5,04,06,700/- made by the Ld. AO on the basis of diary found as a result of search. The addition so made by the Ld. A…

SMT. ANARO DEVI,ALWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 341/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69C

…but was a gain made in the adventure in the nature of business in carrying out the scheme of profit-making.” 17. The Assessing Officer, in arriving at the above said conclusion, relied on following two decisions:-  G.Venkataswami Baidu & Co. vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594, by Hon’ble Supreme Court.  DCIT vs. Gopal Ramarayan Kasat, (2011) 9 Taxmann 236, by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It may be mentioned here that and the one of the grounds of appeal, 18. is that the Assessing Officer has observed in the assessment order that as requested by the Ld. AR of the assessee, reasons were provided, but actually no reason w…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. GLAND PHARMA LTD.,

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/96/2017) fails and stands

ITTA/96/2017HC Telangana09 Apr 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260ASection 43B

…ered by the assessing officer, as to how the CIT(A) reversed the same, on its part, re-examined the factual position and elaborately considered the matter, took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 5 in CIT vs. G. Venkataswami Naidu reported in 35 ITR 594(SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the question whether gain made out of purchase and sale of the land, is an accretion or capital profit which may depend on particular facts and circumstances. After noting the said decision, the tribunal on facts, held that the view taken by the CIT(A) was fully justified. Thus, we find that…

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

…r the purpose of company then the transaction 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…

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

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

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

…rt from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme I.T.A. No. 399/Jodh/2024 ACIT vs. Mukesh Shah 10 Court in the case of CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswamy Naidu vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594(SC) has observed that the certain factors are relevant for deciding the character of a transaction. These factors and their fulfilment in the case under reference was discussed by AO and the same is reproduced herein below:- Factors Applicability in the case under reference Was the purchaser, a trader and whether Yes, the assessee is engaged in…

SHRI DEEPAK SURESH GADGE,,NAGPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 23/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 234A

…with the theory of adventure in the nature of trade. A number of decisions are referred to in support of this proposition. strong reliance is placed on the 12 Shri Deepak Gadge observations of the Supreme Court in G. Venkataswami Naidu and Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 to the effect that even an isolated transaction can be an adventure in the nature of trade. 21. We have carefully considered the above submission of counsel for the assessee. The question whether a transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade or not has been the subject-matter of several judicial decisions. It appears to be the well-settled…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KRUTI LALITKUMAR JAIN, PUNE

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

ITA 1554/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…ents advanced by the assessee. According to him, the dominant intention of the assessee in this transaction of purchase and sale of land is to earn profit. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT, 35 ITR 594 (SC), the Assessing Officer held that the profit on sale of land at Charoli is business profit. Accordingly, rejecting the long term capital loss on sale of Charoli land at Rs.6,20,122/-, he made addition of Rs.3,33,53,000/- as business income and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,05,01,938/-. 4 6. In appeal, CIT(A) / NFAC delet…

ACIT CIRCLE-36(1), NEW DELHI vs. HIMANSHU GARG, NEW DELHI

ITA 819/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 54BSection 54F

…by the Hon'ble Courts on the issue of treatment of a transaction as “adventure in nature of trade" Vs. “capital gain” arising out of investment and consequent sale. 12. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the judgment in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. Vs. CIT 35 ITR 594 (SC) wherein it was held that, "If a person invests money in land intending to hold it, enjoy its income for some time, and then sells it at a profit, it would be a clear case of capital accretion and not profit derived from an adventure in the nature of trade. Cases of realization of investments consisting of purchase and resale, though profitab…

VIPUL MAHASUKHLAL GOPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2

ITA 3726/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvipul Mahasukhlal Gopani, A-3003, One Avighna Park, Mahadev Palav Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaapg8761A ....... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Jayshree Menon, Ld. DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

…Lal Gopani them for acquisition of agricultural lands by terming the same to be "adventure in the nature of trade", as defined under section 2(13). [Para 15] In view of observation of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594, an interference by this Court, against the findings affirmed by the Tribunal, would be permissible, if the inference drawn by the Tribunal has been drawn on considering inadmissible evidence or after excluding admissible and relevant evidence. It can also be seen that, it is only if this Court is satisfied that the inference is the result of impr…

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…ll necessary, of sale as the primary purpose of the purchase. Further, though not necessary in view of it being a regular activity, even a solitary or an isolated transaction can be regarded as an adventure in the nature of trade (see, interalia, decisions at 35 ITR 594 (SC); 77 ITR 253 (SC); 100 ITR 706 (SC)). 6.3 The next question which emanates from the finding/s by the ld. CIT(A), under challenge before us, is if a land, even if agricultural, can be traded in so as to constitute ‘business’. We see no reason for it to be not so. The only thing that is relevant from the standpoint of the assessee, irrespective…

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)

…and not simply on entries made in books or bald averments made by the parties. For this, we may first gainfully ITA Ns. 2404/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Shreyas Builders refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. (35 ITR 594). In the decided case, the Hon’ble Court had noted that, the assessee had purchased four continuous plots of land admeasuring 5.26 acres. After a gap of five years, these properties were sold in two lots to a company which was managed by the assessee. The question for consideration was whether, the sale of the land was assessable under the head “B…

BHANUPRASAD MAGANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 7/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…al and surrounding circumstances need to be seen while deciding the issue whether profit earned on sale of land is business income or income from capital gain. (It is pertinent to note that In the decision reported in G. Venkataswami Naidu's case & Co.'s case 35 ITR 594, the Apex Court pointed out that the question as to whether the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade is a mixed question of law and fact, it held that when Section 2(4) of the 1922 Act referred to an adventure in the nature of trade, it clearly suggested that the transaction in question cannot properly be regarded as trade or busine…

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, HYDERABAD vs. SRI KONDA LAXMAIAH,, NALGONDA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1469/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 28Section 45

…nature of trade by him and therefore, the profit on sale of the impugned land is chargeable to tax u/s 28 and not u/s 45 as claimed by the assessee. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswamy Naidu & Co vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594, the Assessing Officer held that the transaction is adventure in nature of trade. After deducting the cost as per sale deed and registration expenses, etc., and the profit declared on the regular basis, the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.4,43,51,900/- in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Page 3 of 10 ITA 1469 of 2014 6. I…

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

…de; volume of trade; nature of the transactions over the years, etc., are required to be examined. The same, it would be seen, is in complete agreement with the law explained by it per a series of decisions, beginning G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC), with that in Raja J. Rameshwar Rao (supra) being consistent therewith; the business activity in that case being plotting of land. It would be noticed that even as we have concurred with the Revenue in conclusion, our findings are not wholly in agreement therewith; we finding the assessee- company as not holding an asset awaiting suitable tim…

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

SINDYA SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CORP.CIRCLE-6[2], CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 438/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.438/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Sindya Securities & Investments Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ No.609, Lakshi Bavan, V Floor Corporate Circle 6(2) Sundaram Avenue, Mount Road Chennai Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aalcs-3297-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar (Ca) & Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan,(Ca) - Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. S. Senthil Kumaran (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA) &For Respondent: Dr. S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 28

…ts right and the same, therefore, was to be taxed as business receipts only. The contention of the assessee that the said receipts would be capital receipts could not be accepted in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dalmia Cement Ltd. (105 ITR 633) wherein it has been held that the intention of the assessee has to be examined to determine the nature of the activity. 3.3 The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that para (F) of termination agreement clearly indicate that the payments received by the assessee was in relation to non-compete and non-solicit application. The aforesaid facts were not verified b…

Showing 1–20 of 133 · Page 1 of 7