Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT

35 ITR 594Supreme Court of India1959#765 most cited

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

A transaction is considered an adventure in the nature of trade, constituting business income, if there is a pre-determination to sell an asset at a profit. Conduct prior to purchase, as well as subsequent improvements, are relevant in determining the character of the transaction.

133

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT · 35 ITR 594 · adventure in the nature of trade · business income · profit on sale of land · pre-determination to sell · isolated transaction · capital gains · section 45

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

transfer of capital assetsection 45short term capital gainlong term capital gainsection 28previous yeartransferincome from other sourcesbusinesscompanysection 142(1)section 143(2)

Judgments citing Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT

Good Homes Pvt Ltd, Kochi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 884/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &ShriAbyT.Varkey, JM ITA No.870/Coch/2022: Asst.Year: 2007-2008 Ajit Associates Private Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza Income-tax, Corp.Cir.1(1) vs. KPCC Junction Kochi. Ernakulam – 682 011. [PAN: AAGCA9157P] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.884/Coch/2022: Asst.Year: 2007-2008 Good Homes Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza Income-tax, Corp.Cir.1(1) vs. KPCC Junction Kochi. Ernakulam – 682 011. [PAN: AABCG0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri.A.Gopalakr…

Ajit Associates Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. JCIT, Corporate Range - 1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &ShriAbyT.Varkey, JM ITA No.870/Coch/2022: Asst.Year: 2007-2008 Ajit Associates Private Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza Income-tax, Corp.Cir.1(1) vs. KPCC Junction Kochi. Ernakulam – 682 011. [PAN: AAGCA9157P] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.884/Coch/2022: Asst.Year: 2007-2008 Good Homes Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza Income-tax, Corp.Cir.1(1) vs. KPCC Junction Kochi. Ernakulam – 682 011. [PAN: AABCG0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri.A.Gopalakr…

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

…he said land was classified as "stock in trade" in the books of the Assessee in the earlier years. The question is whether such classification in books is be all and end all of the matter. Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (1959 35 ITR 594 (SC) held that all attendant facts and circumstances of the case is to be seen to determine whether the income is capital gain or business income No one test or formula can be applied as a thumb rule. The same sentiment has been echoed by the Mumbai High Court in the case of Fort Properties (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 232 (Bom.) wherein the IT(…

Vaijanti Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Vaijanti Jain, Vs Ito, C-407, 2Nd Floor, Saraswati Ward-40(3), Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaafpj5260J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms.Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Vaijanti Jain, vs ITO, C-407, 2nd Floor, Saraswati Ward-40(3), Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. PAN-AAAFPJ5260J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Ms.Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Respondent by Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013- 14 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi dated 18.12.2018. The assessee…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Drv Builders Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1273/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1273/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-17 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar &For Respondent: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. D.R

…against the accounting practices and business practices. iii. That the assessee has used the borrowed fund for the acquisition of the land in dispute. A.Y. 2016-17 4 iv. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G Venktaswami Naidu and Co. vs. CIT reported in 35 ITR 594 has held that even a single transaction carried out with the intention to earn profit shall be regarded as business income. 4.1 In view of the above, the AO concluded that any loss or gain arising from the sale of the land in dispute is chargeable to tax under the head business and profession. Thus the AO disallowed the loss claimed by the assess…

Dilip Bhattu Karanjule, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11(1), Pune

ITA 838/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 838/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 Dilip Bhattu Karanjule 482/B, Audumber, Suraj Nagar, Shirur (Ghodnadi), Pune – 412210 Pan:Acdpk5361M . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Deepak Sasar Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 27/09/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 24/10/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Arose Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 23/03/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-13. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Shri Deepak SasarFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250Section 28

…er of ‘business income’ exigible to tax u/s 28 of the Act. When the cumulative facts and circumstances seen holistically and read in conjunction with the tests and judicial precedents laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “G. Venkatswami Naidu Vs CIT” reported in 35 ITR 594 gives a sound basis to infer the intention of commercial gain in the ITAT-Pune Page 10 of 12 Dilip B Karanjule ITA No.838/PUN/2018 AY: 2012-13 impugned trading transactions, and in holding so it is apt to reproduce the text therefrom as; “where purchase has been made solely and exclusively with intention to resell at a profit and the purchaser ha…

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)

…obile Products of India Ltd. (1983) 140 ITR 159 (Bom),  Gordhandas Trikambhai Patel (1979) 118 ITR 81 (Guj),  Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC),  Tribhuvandas Vallabhdas s CIT (1966) 61 ITR 518,  G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. Vs CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594,  Vasupujya Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs ITO (ITA 912 to 923/PN/2002) (Pune Trib) order dated 31/05/2006. 11. At the time of making submissions, the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws;  CIT Vs India Discount Co. (1975) 75 ITR 191 SC, 15 DCIT Vs Swastik Enterprises  Smt. Indiramati Bai & Others Vs ACIT (1983) 200 ITR 59…

V.Rajasekhar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsri V. Rajasekhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-14(5), [Pan No. Aadpr0797E] Hyderabad Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 263

…n. Page 18 of 26 7. On the point that the claim of the assessee that he was into business of real estate and converted the land into stock in trade is baseless, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu (35 ITR 594). In the said decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain criteria to ascertain whether a transaction is in the character of trade/business or not. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that "If, a person invests money in land intending to hold it, enjoys its income for some time, and then sells it ata profit, it would from an adventure in the nature…

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)

…the said land was classified as "stock in trade" in the books of the Assesseein the earlier years. The question is whether such classification in books is be all and end all of the matter. Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (1959 35 ITR 594 (SC) held that all attendant facts and circumstances of the case is to be seen to determine whether the income is capital gain or business income No one test or formula can be applied as a thumb rule. The same sentiment has been echoed by the Mumbai High Court in the case of Fort Properties (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 232 (Bom.) wherein the Ho…

M/S. Gayan Traders Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA/48/2009HC Calcutta30 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…so placed on the decision in the case of P.V.S. Raju and P. Rajyalakshmi Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax7. 7. We have elaborately heard learned counsel for the parties. 4 (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) 5 (1986) 3 SCC 364 6 (1969) 2 SCC 25 7 (2012) 340 ITR 75 AP ITA NO. 48 OF 2009 REPORTABLE Page 7 of 19 8. The CBDT by Circular No. 4 of 2007 dated 15.06.2007 laid down the tests…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satna vs. Smt. Jharna Bhattacharya, Satna

ITA 226/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 254(1)Section 54B

…s ‘‘sold’’ and the word ‘,i.e.,’ be omitted in the first sentence of the para (at pg.10) b) the following sentence be read after the first sentence ending with the words ‘nature of trade’ (pg.10): ‘(refer, inter alia, G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC))’ 5 | P a g e ITA No. 225 & 226/JAB/2018 (AY: 2009-10) C.O.No. 25 & 26/JAB/2018 Seema Bhattacharya & Jharna Bhattacharya c) the following words be inserted after the words ‘plotting itself’ in the second sentence of the said sub-para (pg.10): ‘; the same necessarily entailing expenditure, including on laying of passages/internal roads lea…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satna vs. Smt. Seema Bhattacharya, Satna

ITA 225/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 254(1)Section 54B

…s ‘‘sold’’ and the word ‘,i.e.,’ be omitted in the first sentence of the para (at pg.10) b) the following sentence be read after the first sentence ending with the words ‘nature of trade’ (pg.10): ‘(refer, inter alia, G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC))’ 5 | P a g e ITA No. 225 & 226/JAB/2018 (AY: 2009-10) C.O.No. 25 & 26/JAB/2018 Seema Bhattacharya & Jharna Bhattacharya c) the following words be inserted after the words ‘plotting itself’ in the second sentence of the said sub-para (pg.10): ‘; the same necessarily entailing expenditure, including on laying of passages/internal roads lea…

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

…he 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 appellant in which it was shown as business asset. The AO ac…

Sh. Surender Meena, 36, Pratap Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…imultaneously sold out to various persons points towards the fact that the transaction comes under the ambit of adventure in nature of trade. In this regard, reliance is placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of G.Venkatswamy Naidu vs. CIT(1959) 35 ITR 594(SC). Hence, it is held that the profit from activities undertaken by the assessee are in the nature of trade and therefore, the income so generated was to be computed under the head business income. Accordingly, the AO was 5 Sh. Surender Meena vs. PCIT required to disallow the indexation and deduction claim u/s. 54F also, which the AO failed to d…

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)

…The AO disputed the same and held it as adventure in the nature of trade and brought it to taxation as business income. The AO had relied on the following decisions: 1 Indramani Bai & Another Vs. Addl.ClT (SC)200 ITR 594. 2. G .Nenkatasami Naidu & Co Vs CIT 35 ITR 594. 3. Addl. CIT vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah (Kar) 164 1TR 41 & 4. CIT Vs. R.Ramaiah & Others (Kar) 146 ITR 39 5. The AR for the assessee has filed detailed written arguments as per which the AR has relied on the apex court's decisions in G.Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. (107 !TR 716), Rajputtana Textile Agency Ltd. (42 ITR 743) as well as Madras High Cou…

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)

…The AO disputed the same and held it as adventure in the nature of trade and brought it to taxation as business income. The AO had relied on the following decisions: 1 Indramani Bai & Another Vs. Addl.ClT (SC)200 ITR 594. 2. G .Nenkatasami Naidu & Co Vs CIT 35 ITR 594. 3. Addl. CIT vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah (Kar) 164 1TR 41 & 4. CIT Vs. R.Ramaiah & Others (Kar) 146 ITR 39 5. The AR for the assessee has filed detailed written arguments as per which the AR has relied on the apex court's decisions in G.Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. (107 !TR 716), Rajputtana Textile Agency Ltd. (42 ITR 743) as well as Madras High Cou…

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)

…The AO disputed the same and held it as adventure in the nature of trade and brought it to taxation as business income. The AO had relied on the following decisions: 1 Indramani Bai & Another Vs. Addl.ClT (SC)200 ITR 594. 2. G .Nenkatasami Naidu & Co Vs CIT 35 ITR 594. 3. Addl. CIT vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah (Kar) 164 1TR 41 & 4. CIT Vs. R.Ramaiah & Others (Kar) 146 ITR 39 5. The AR for the assessee has filed detailed written arguments as per which the AR has relied on the apex court's decisions in G.Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. (107 !TR 716), Rajputtana Textile Agency Ltd. (42 ITR 743) as well as Madras High Cou…

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)

…The AO disputed the same and held it as adventure in the nature of trade and brought it to taxation as business income. The AO had relied on the following decisions: 1 Indramani Bai & Another Vs. Addl.ClT (SC)200 ITR 594. 2. G .Nenkatasami Naidu & Co Vs CIT 35 ITR 594. 3. Addl. CIT vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah (Kar) 164 1TR 41 & 4. CIT Vs. R.Ramaiah & Others (Kar) 146 ITR 39 5. The AR for the assessee has filed detailed written arguments as per which the AR has relied on the apex court's decisions in G.Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. (107 !TR 716), Rajputtana Textile Agency Ltd. (42 ITR 743) as well as Madras High Cou…

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)

…The AO disputed the same and held it as adventure in the nature of trade and brought it to taxation as business income. The AO had relied on the following decisions: 1 Indramani Bai & Another Vs. Addl.ClT (SC)200 ITR 594. 2. G .Nenkatasami Naidu & Co Vs CIT 35 ITR 594. 3. Addl. CIT vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah (Kar) 164 1TR 41 & 4. CIT Vs. R.Ramaiah & Others (Kar) 146 ITR 39 5. The AR for the assessee has filed detailed written arguments as per which the AR has relied on the apex court's decisions in G.Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. (107 !TR 716), Rajputtana Textile Agency Ltd. (42 ITR 743) as well as Madras High Cou…

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)

…The AO disputed the same and held it as adventure in the nature of trade and brought it to taxation as business income. The AO had relied on the following decisions: 1 Indramani Bai & Another Vs. Addl.ClT (SC)200 ITR 594. 2. G .Nenkatasami Naidu & Co Vs CIT 35 ITR 594. 3. Addl. CIT vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah (Kar) 164 1TR 41 & 4. CIT Vs. R.Ramaiah & Others (Kar) 146 ITR 39 5. The AR for the assessee has filed detailed written arguments as per which the AR has relied on the apex court's decisions in G.Venkataswamy Naidu & Co. (107 !TR 716), Rajputtana Textile Agency Ltd. (42 ITR 743) as well as Madras High Cou…