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

Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Now, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3034/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri C. Danday, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 253Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)

…ion. Thus, it is to be inferred that intention of erstwhile company ab-inito was for acquiring investment in stock and not investment in land. The AO made reference to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. Vs. CIT, , 35 ITR 594 and in the case of Dalmia Cement Ltd. Vs. CIT, 105 ITR 633. On the strength of these decisions, he observed that even a single transaction of purchase and sale may be treated as business transaction. 29. The ld.CIT(A), on the other hand, made re-analysis of all the facts and circumstances and did not concur with the AO as per the finding extracte…

Manaz Retail P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 7636/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Manz Retail P. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range-8(2) Knowledge House, Shyam Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Vs. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), R. No. Manz Retail P. Ltd. 209, 2Nd Floor, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vipul Joshi,Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr.Vipul Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Neil Philip, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…ssioners of Inland Revenue v. Reinhold (1953) 34 TC 389]. The principles underlying the distinction between a capital sale and an adventure in the nature of trade were examined by this court in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [(1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC)], where this court said 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. Ultimately, it is a matter of first impression with the court whether a particular transaction is in the nature of trade or not. It…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Dilip Narayn Borawake, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2425/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 2423 To 2425/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

…rs, the assessee has transferred the development rights in the said land and has not entered into any partnership or joint venture with M/s. Amar Builders. After considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [35 ITR 594], the learned CIT has held that the gain is taxable as long term capital gain. The copy of the order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2007 - 08 is enclosed on pages 76 - 88 of the Paper Book. For A.Ys. 2011 - 12 to 2013 - 14, the learned CIT(A) has again allowed the claim of the assessee and has held that the gain on sale of land is taxable as long term capital…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Dilip Narayn Borawake, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2424/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 2423 To 2425/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Shri Vijaybhansingh Lallusingh Rajput, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

ITA 2990/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: C .M. Garg, Jm & O. P. Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2990/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Vijaybhaisingh Lallusingh Rajput V. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 258/10-11 Near Shiv Ward-2(3)(4), Surat. Vijay Processors, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat – 394221. [Pan:Abxpr3970L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Ramesh Kumar Malapani, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri R. P. Rastogi, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 31.07.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 28.09.2018 Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against An Order Dated 24.08.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Surat (In Short “The Cit (A)”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

Section 50C

…essee submitted that impugned land was transferred within just 7 months from date of purchase and was therefore, adventure in nature of trade. This view was supported by decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkatswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC) in which it was held that even an isolated and single transaction may be adventure in nature of trade , if some essential features of trade are present is such a transaction. Therefore, the CIT (A) should have treated the transaction Vijaysingh Lalusingh Rajput v. ITO2(3)(4) Surat /I.T.A. No. 2990/Ahd/2015/A.Y.11-12 Page 8 of 14 as adventur…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mohinder Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2310/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…Vs. Good 49 TC 277, 296-297 (CA), it was held that the mere fact that the owner of an immovable property takes steps to enhance its value before selling it, does not point out to an adventure in the nature of trade. (vi) In G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. V CIT 35 ITR 594 (SC), the following extract is relevant for deciding the question whether the profit is by way of capital accretion or is income from an adventure in the nature of trade. This is what Gajendragadkar J. (as his Lordship then was), who spoke for the court, observed at page 609. “If a person invests money in land intending to hold it, enjoy its incom…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Arjun Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2309/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

DCIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Noshir D. Talati, Mumbai

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2306/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. C.I.T – 8(3)(1) V. Noshir D. Talati Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, 96-D, Villa Modern, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Worli Sea Face, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 018 Pan No: Aaapt 6890 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.295/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2306/Mum/2016 (A.Y: 2008-09)] Noshir D. Talati V. Dy. C.I.T – 8(3)(1) 96-D, Villa Modern, Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Worli Sea Face, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 Pan No: Aaapt 6890 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ndexation and long term capital gain of ₹.1,10,78,586/- being half share was offered for taxation. The Assessing Officer referring to the decision of Supreme court in the case Indramani Bai & another v. ACIT [200 ITR 594] and G Venkatswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [35 ITR 594], he came to the conclusion that sale of land after plotting is a business venture and therefore the sale proceeds should have been assessed as business income instead of capital gains and therefore he was of the view that there is loss of revenue which escaped assessment. Accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued reopening the assessment and reopened…

Mahaveer Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 209/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (Addl.CIT)

Section 2(14)

…nts in favour of its claim. I have gone into the plethora of judgments cited by the appellant. However the gist of most of the cited judgments hinge broadly on the parameters set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswamy Naidu vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC). Therefore it is pertinent to go into the rational and the parameters set by the Apex Court in the said judgment. Therefore, the above mentioned judgment has laid down certain tests to find out whether a particular transaction of purchase and sale would amount to an adventure in the nature of trade or not, and at the same time cautioned that…

Pradeep Vatrana, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar

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

ITA 930/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P. P. Meena (JCIT)

Section 54

…ess income as against Rs. 52,73,855/- declared by the assessee as long term capital gain. 2.6 The Ld. CIT(A) without following the order of his predecessor CIT(A), after quoting the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of G. Venkatas Swami Naidu vs. CIT 35 ITR 594, held that the principle laid down in the said case is applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Sohan Khan and Mohan Khan 304 ITR 194 is distinguishable on facts. Therefore, by not following the order of his predecessor CIT(A), he upheld the order passed by the AO. 2.7 It…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Narendra J.Bhimani, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 411/RJT/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)

…de of transaction tends to eliminate the possibility of investment for personal use, possession or enjoyment. Sale of land after plotting has been held as a business venture in following cases by various courts: G. Venkataswamy Naidu & co. vs CIT (SC) (1959) (35 ITR 594) Indrarnani Bai & others vs Addl. CIT (SC) 200 ITR 594 2] Just as the conduct of the purchaser subsequent to the purchase of a commodity improving or converting it so as to make it more readily resaleable is a relevant factor in determining the character of the transaction, so would his conduct prior to the purchase be relevant if it shows a desig…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Pratima Sankhla, Jaipur

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

ITA 605/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 54B

…n nature of trade. Cases of realization of investment consisting of purchase and resale, though profitable are clearly outside the domain of adventure in the nature of trade. Further Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the case of S. Venkataswami Naidu and Co. (35 ITR 594) has given a illustrative factors (supra) to decide a case to be fit as real estate transaction or not ? 3 ACIT, Central Circle-1. Jaipur vs Smt. Pratima Sankhla, Jaipur On perusal of annexure appended with the assessment order, it is also seen that there are 15 transactions of purchase and sale of immovable property amongst 6 members of the gr…

S.M.Noorudheen Shajahan, Coimbatore vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 256/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri S.M. Noorudheen Shajahan, The Joint Commissioner Of No. 25A-4/1, Ami Mid Town, Vs. Income Tax, Range Iii, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 018. Coimbatore 641 002. [Pan:Abcpn6465F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore, Dated 16.11.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12, Wherein, The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of ₹.43,90,810/- From Sale Of Lands Treating The Same As Business Income.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, JCIT

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

…ing on business and making a profit. This is exactly what had happened in the assessee's case.” It may, again, be relevant to reproduce from the decision by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC): page 596-597: “When section 2(4) of the Income-tax Act refers to an adventure in the nature of trade it clearly suggests that the transaction in question cannot properly be regarded as trade or business. It is allied to transactions that constitute trade or business but may not be trade or business itself. It is characterised by some of the…

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5845/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 133(6)

…nction with the conduct of the assessee and other ITA No. 5845/Del./2014 12 circumstances, point to the business character of the transactions. [CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC) and Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC)].Where a purchase is made with the intention of resale, it depends upon the conduct of the assessee and the circumstances of the case whether the venture is on capital account or in the nature of trade. A transaction is not necessarily in the nature of trade because the purchase was made with the intention of resale. Whether shares of a compa…

Mega City Development Corporation, Chennai vs. ACIT(OSD), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3255/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Nandakumar, JCIT

Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 3254/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 KAKB Developers, The Income-tax Officer Now 10 & 11, Dr. Radhakrishnan v. 3(4), Corporate Range – 5, Salai, Chennai City Centre, Chennai - 34. 4th floor, Mylapore, (""यथ"/Respondent) Chennai – 600 004. PAN AASFM3707C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 3255/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /…

Kakb Developers, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 3 (4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3254/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Nandakumar, JCIT

Section 143(2)

Shri S. Elango, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AYs 2012-13 &

ITA 3096/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 54F

…by the assessee as business income. The AO also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Rameswaran v. CIT reported in 42 ITR 117 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkata Swamy Naidu .v. CIT 35 ITR 594. The AO rejected the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.54F of IT Act amounting to Rs.5,24,35,289/- and computed the business income at Rs.6,37,30,650/- against the returned income of Rs.9,0,57,646/-. 5.0 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO holding t…

Shri S. Elango, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AYs 2012-13 &

ITA 3095/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 54F

Snehal Rakesh Saigal, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8767/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 44ASection 50C

…shall apply only in respect of capital asset and hence the same cannot be applied if the income is computed under business head. Learned AR placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. (1959) 35 ITR 594 and submitted that a solitary transaction can also be treated as a business transaction. He further submitted that Hon'ble Madras High Court has also expressed an identical view in the case of Allu Arvind Babu (350 ITR 387). 4. On the contrary learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the order passed by the learned CIT(A). 5. Havin…

M/S. Chandra Prakash Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Hapur

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 3032/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sh. Chandra Prakash Goel, C/O- M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Hapur Extension, Part-I, New Delhi Pan : Aatpg4288R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/02/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad For Assessment Year 2010-11, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT Vs. Sohan Khan (supra). In the said case, Hon’ble High Court relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC). 3.9.4 In that case, Hon’ble Supreme Court said that it is impossible to evolve any formula which can be applied in determining the character of isolated transaction as adventure in the nature of trade or capital gain. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court made a general observation that if a person invest money in land intending to hold it, enjo…