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#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 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

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)

…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…

The ITO, Ward-5(1), Baroda vs. Shri Kanubhai M.Patel, Baroda

In the result, Ground No.1 of Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2913/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 50Section 50C

…n question was treated as stock-in- trade in his books of accounts and hence income earned from sale thereof qualifies as ‘business income’. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on Supreme Court decision in the case of of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT 35 ITR 594 (SC) to contend that if an asset is bought with a pre- determination to sell it at a profit, it will qualify as a business transaction. The assessee took unsecured loan from SPIL’s group entity on which interest was also paid in order to give effect to the transaction. Hence, the I.T.A No. 2913/Ahd/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. 9 ITO vs. Shri Kanubha…

Mattapalli Ram Kumar, Rajahmundry vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 592/VIZ/2019[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.592/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Mattapalli Ram Kumar Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 8-20-11/A, Madireddy Vari Street Income Tax Rajahmundry Circle1(1) [Pan : Afrpm4855P] Rajahmundry (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR

Section 143(2)

…ctors holding 32% of shares. The assessee declared his share of long term capital gains of Rs.29,14,025/-, arising out of sale of plots. The Ld.AO carefully examined the submissions made by the assessee, relying on the case of G.Venkataswamy Naidu Vs. CIT [35 ITR 594 (SC)] and treated it as ‘Adventure in the Nature of Trade’ and taxed the sale consideration as business receipts. 3 ITA No.592/Viz/2019, A.Y.2016-17 Mattapalli Ram Kumar, Rajahmundry 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A), Rajahmndry. Considering the submissions made by the AR, the Ld.CIT(A), upheld the or…

G.Neelavathy, Pondicherry vs. ITO Ward 5, Pondicherry

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

ITA 2915/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…law of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Chamundeswari, 2019 (1) TMI 861, wherein the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court following the decision of I.T.A. No.2915/Chny/2018 6 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswamy Naidu vs. CIT, 35 ITR 594 held that property purchased with the intention of profit is business income but in case, assessee holds the property for a long period and investing in the property in an intention to hold and enjoy the property and sells it for capital appreciation, the profit deriving there from is taxable under the head ‘capital gains’. The Hon’ble Karnataka H…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Chandrakant Somabhai Patel (HUF), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1194/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate

Section 250(6)

…frequent sale or purchase of rear estate by the appellant. The appellant has claimed it to be investment and never claimed as business asset hence not claimed any depreciation. Authorized Representative discussed ratio in the case of following case laws : a) 35 ITR 594(SC) G. Venkatswami Naidu & Co. - ratio distinguished by Authorized Representative. b) 195 ITR 386(Bom) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. - ratio distinguished by Authorized Representative. c) Arjundev K. Khanna HUF - Ahmedabad ITAT ITA. No. 1308/Ahd/2008 -- ratio distinguished by Authorized Representative The appellant has relied on the ratio of followin…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Bharat R Gajria

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/68/2015HC Karnataka06 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 260Section 260ASection 40

…the Revenue before this Court in ITA No.233/2011. But, due to want of monetary limits, the appeal came to be disposed of as not maintainable. Learned counsel placing reliance on G.Venkataswami Naidu and Company V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1959) 35 ITR 594], argued that the transaction of the assessee cannot be construed as coming under capital gains but it is an adventure in the nature of trade, as rightly held by the Assessing Officer. Nextly, it was contended that there was suppression of sale consideration by the assessee by showing the sale value at Rs.975/- per square feet instead of Rs…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata 4 vs. Eveready Industries India Limited

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/233/2018) is dismissed and the

ITAT/233/2018HC Calcutta30 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th November, 2021 Appearance :-

Section 2Section 260ASection 43BSection 50

…rendered 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 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 there i…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-4, Kolkata vs. Eveready Industries India Limited

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

ITAT/96/2017HC Calcutta29 Nov 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

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…

Dilip Sangoi, Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri R.K. Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA Nos.34 & 33/RPR/2021 A.Ys. 2016-17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Dilip Sangoi, vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Samta Colony Raipur. Ramsagar Para Raipur (CG) [PAN – AJGPS 3531 D] Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Arvind Sangoi, vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Ganjpara, Raipur. Ramsagar Para Raipur (CG) [PAN – AUCPS 4150 P] (Appellants) (Respondent) Appellants by : Shri Amit Maloo Jain, C.A. Respondent by : Shri R.K. Singh, CIT D.R. Date of hearing : 30.07.2021 Date…

Arvind Sangoi, Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri R.K. Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

Nalin V Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5952/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Nalin V. Shah Acit 4(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C Karim Court, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 3Rd Pasta Lane, C.J. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Colaba, Mumbai - 400 005

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…sessed as business income or STCG is determining the intention which the assessee had at the time of purchase of the shares. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC). In its aforesaid order the Hon‟ble Apex court had, inter alia, observed, that it is the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase of an asset that would be a determinative factor for concluding as to whether the income arising on the sale of the same is to be assessed as business income or under the head capital gain. Now, in the cas…

Mujib Salmanbhai Pathan, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Inocme Tax Circle -3, Nagpur

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

ITA 98/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.98/Nag/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 ......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Mujib Salmanbhai Pathan, House No.242, Ward No.2, Old Area, Wardha Road, Butibori, Nagpur-441108. Pan : Aefpp0269M. बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-3, Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Veena Agrawal Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Stating That The Subject, Whether Proper Approval Was Taken Before Converting Limited Scrutiny Into Complete Scrutiny Being Administrative Measure Cannot Be Taken Up. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs 1,00,85,013/- Made By The Ao As Income Under The Head Business & Profession Rightly Declared As Income Under The Head Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Shri Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Smt. Agnes P. Thomas

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…ssets and, therefore, the profit arising on the sale of said land only results in the business profits not as a capital gains. The Assessing Officer also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT, 35 ITR 594 in support of the proposition that when the land was purchased with the intention of re-sell of profits, it is a transaction in the nature of trade and, accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the profits arising on sale of said land as “business profits” as against the claim of the appellant that the 4 profits are in the nature of “capital ga…

Pooja Marketing, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2596/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

Section 115BSection 263Section 58(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M/s. Pooja Marketing Vs. Pr. CIT-31, C/o. Shri Ketan J. Shah Room No.301, C-13, 3rd Floor, C-1, Ami Darshan D.B. Patil Road Pratykshakar Bhavan Malad (E) BKC, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 097 Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No.AAOFP2090F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate, Shri Ravi Sawana & Shri Samyak Lohade Revenue by Shri B.V. Jhaveri Date of Hearing 24/03/2021 Date of Pronouncement 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.2596/Mum/2019…

M/S Unicorn Agro Tech Limited, Secunderabad vs. The Asst. Commisisoner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

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

ITTA/48/2009HC Telangana16 Mar 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

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…

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

…of the Assessee. 10. The definition of business in the Act is an inclusive definition and includes any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or conern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture. The Supreme Court in G.Venkataswamy Naidu (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) held that even if there is absence of regularity, frequency or continuity in the transaction/s even an isolated transaction can be regarded as carrying on of business and as an adventure in the nature of trade for the purpose of treating it as business carried on. The supreme court in several cases laid down tests to determine as to when a si…

Rajeshwari Reddy Baddam, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 1765/HYD/2019[200-8]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2021

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sri B. Shanti KumarFor Respondent: Sri N. Srikanth, DR

Section 148Section 50C

…nsactions. In support of this contention that the transaction is adventure in the nature of trade and not transfer of the capital asset. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC). Page 2 of 4 ITA No 1765 of 2019 Rajeshwari Reddy Baddam Hyderabad 5. The learned DR, however, submitted that the assessee has purchased the immovable property and sold the same and therefore, capital gain arises as the assessee has not done any other activity prior to or thereafter. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the mater…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Nalwa Investment Ltd

Appeals are allowed

ITA/822/2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 260ASection 391Section 47

…s stock- in-trade. During income tax assessment proceedings for the preceding year, holding of shares were treated as stock-in-trade and not as capital asset. Further relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in G.Venkataswami Naidu Co. v. CIT, (1959) 35 ITR 594, (SC), it was concluded that Section 45 has no applicability to the case of the Respondent-assessees. The appeal before CIT(A) also was rejected and the assessment order passed by the AO was confirmed. When the matter travelled to the Tribunal, the Respondent- assesees assailed the common order of CIT(A) by raising several contentions; the for…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Mansarovar Investments Ltd

Appeals are allowed

ITA/961/2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 260ASection 391Section 47

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Abhuinandan Investments Lt

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 853 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020

Section 260ASection 391Section 47

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S M/S Jindal Equipment Leasi

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 935 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020

Section 260ASection 391Section 47