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

Mahalaxmi Innovative Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light our aforesaid observations

ITA 4856/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4856/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mahalaxmi Innovative Services Ltd. Dcit Cir 2(2) बिधम/ 1004, 10Th Floor, Maker Chambers-V, Mumbai Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai, स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm9810C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…pellants case, the emphasized portion of the instruction quoted below ought to have been considered by him. Attention was invited to instruction No. 1827 dated 31.8.1989. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: i) G. Venkata Swami Naidu & co. Vs. CIT 35 ITR 594 (SC) ii) H. Mohammad & Co. Vs. CIT 107 ITR 637 (Guj.) iii) Sarder Indra Singh & sons Ltd. Vs. CIT 24 ITR 415 (SC) iv) SBH. Vs.CIT 151 ITR 703 iv) Karam Chand Thapar and brothers (P) Ltd Vs. CIT 83 ITR 899 (SC) P a g e | 10 j) That without prejudice, it was submitted that under the present scheme of the Act providing for concessional tax treatmen…

DDIT (E) I (), Mumbai vs. M.C. Natha Bhatia High School Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5580/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Director Of Income Tax, M.C. Natha Bhatia High School Trust (E) I (1) Room No. 04, Piramal 405-406, Navbharat Estate, B- Vs. Chambers, 5Th Floor, Parel, Wing, Zakaria Bundar Road, Mumbai-400012 Sewri-West, Mumbai-400015 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaatm0074C Revenue By .. Shri Suman Kumar, Dr Assessee By .. Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 17-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-02-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Dy. Director of Income Tax, M.C. Natha Bhatia High School Trust (E) I (1) Room No. 04, Piramal 405-406, Navbharat Estate, B- Vs. Chambers, 5th Floor, Parel, Wing, Zakaria Bundar Road, Mumbai-400012 Sewri-West, Mumbai-400015 Appellant .. Respondent PAN NO. AAATM0074C Revenue by .. Shri Suman Kumar, DR Assessee by .. Shri Prakash Jotwani, AR Date of hearing .. 17-01-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 17-02-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of CIT (A)-1,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mahesh Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 173/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 271A

…2009) (ITAT- Mumbai) " Citadell Agencies (P) Ltd. v Assistant Commissioner of Income tax 2007 11 SOT 273 (ITAT, Mumbai) " Bombay Gymkhana Limited v Income tax officer 115 TTJ 639 (ITAT-Mumbai) " G Venkataswami Naidu and Co. v Commissioner of Income tax [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC) " Commissioner of Income tax v PKN Co. Limited [1966] 60 ITR 65(SC) " Gustad Dinshaw Irani v Commissioner of Income tax [1957] 31 ITR 92 (Bombay) " Mrs DM Alexander v Commissioner of Income tax [1952] 22 ITR 379 (Madras) " Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v Commissioner of Income tax [1959] 37 ITR 242 (SC) " Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v Commissioner of Income…

Sanjay J Ahuja, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5731/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Ramlal Negishri Sanjay J. Ahuja, 202, Flat No.11, Shahnaj Building, New New India Bank, S.V.Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Adepa 2739H ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer 19(3)(4), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai 400 011 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Kardam
Section 50C

…vant discussions are extracted below, for the sake of convenience:- “The criteria to determine as to when a receipt by sale of land would be a revenue receipt or capital receipt was laid down by the Supreme Court in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC), in the following terms (headnote) : "If a person invests money in land intending to hold it, enjoys its income for some time, and then sells it at a profit, it would be a clear case of capital accretion and not profits derived from an adventure in the nature of trade. Cases of realisation of investments consisting of purchase and resale, tho…

Khirmin D. Bharucha, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD)-12, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3757/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3757/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mrs. Khirmin D. Bharucha, Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 4, 1St Floor, Income Tax (Osd)-12, V. Jehangir Mansion, Mumbai. Ist Marine Street, Fort, Mumbai -400036. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaepb 8187B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 143(3)

…shares and in many scrips multiple purchases and sales of shares of the same scrip was undertaken by the assessee showing high frequency of dealings. The AO relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594(SC) wherein the hon’ble Apex Court has held that where purchase has been made solely and exclusively with intention to resell at profit and the purchaser has no intention of holding property or enjoying or using it, presence of such an intention is a relevant factor and unless it is offset by presence of other factors, would raise a strong presump…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1527/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n his assessment order :- CIT vs Distributors Baroda Pvt Ltd reported in 83 ITR 377 (SC) CIT vs Amalgamations Pvt Ltd reported in 108 ITR 885 (Mad) CIT vs K.S.Venkatasubbaiah Reddiar reported in 221 ITR 18 (Mad) G.Venkataswami Naidu and Co. vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 594 (SC) CIT vs Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd reported in 100 ITR 706 (SC) Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 68 ITR 486 (SC) 5.7.3. The ld AR further heavily relied on the following case laws in support of his various contentions :- ITO vs Lyons & Roses Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 1148 & 1437/Kol/2009 dated 20.1.2016 (Kolkata Tribu…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n his assessment order :- CIT vs Distributors Baroda Pvt Ltd reported in 83 ITR 377 (SC) CIT vs Amalgamations Pvt Ltd reported in 108 ITR 885 (Mad) CIT vs K.S.Venkatasubbaiah Reddiar reported in 221 ITR 18 (Mad) G.Venkataswami Naidu and Co. vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 594 (SC) CIT vs Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd reported in 100 ITR 706 (SC) Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 68 ITR 486 (SC) 5.7.3. The ld AR further heavily relied on the following case laws in support of his various contentions :- ITO vs Lyons & Roses Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 1148 & 1437/Kol/2009 dated 20.1.2016 (Kolkata Tribu…

ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Idea International P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 7116/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7116/M/11 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir. 6(1) बनाम/ M/S. Idea International Pvt. R.No.506, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Mumbai - 400020 Arcade, Mahalaxmi, Worli, Mumbai - 400034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci1527J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S.Naik
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई "ायपीठ ‘आई’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी जी. एस. प"ू, लेखा सद", एवं "ी अमरजीत िसंह, "ाियक सद", के सम" BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7116/M/11 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) ACIT Cir. 6(1) बनाम/ M/s. Idea International Pvt. R.No.506, 5th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Mumbai - 400020 Arcade, Mahalaxmi, Worli, Mumbai - 400034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCI1527J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Haridas Bhatt Department b…

D.C.I.T Cir - 12, Kolkata vs. M/S Jct Limited., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1106/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1106 To 1109/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 D.C.I.T., Circle-12, -Vs.- M/S. J.C.T. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacj 6733 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Angam Shaiza, Cit For The Respondent : Shri A.K.Gupta, Fca

For Appellant: Shri Angam Shaiza, CITFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCA
Section 145Section 145ASection 43B

…l. We have heard the rival submissions. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of CIT(A). The ld. DR relied on the order of AO. 37. We have considered the rival submissions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswamy Naidu Vs. CIT 35 ITR 594 (SC) has laid down the guide-lines as to when a transaction could be considered as an adventure in the nature of trade. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that where a property is held for a fairly long number of years and income there from is enjoyed then income accruing as a result of sale of such property that would be a case of capital ac…

The Vithalnagar Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 4256/MUM/2014[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainthe Vithalnagar Co-Operative Income Tax Officer-21(2)(4) Housing Society Ltd. 5Th Cloor, C-10, Pratyaksha 51, Ns. Road No. 11 Vs. Kar Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Jai Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme Complex, Bandra (E) Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400056 Mumbai 400050 Pan - Aaaat3055F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind
Section 133(6)

…owever shares cannot be treated as stock-in- trade simply because there was appreciation in the value of shares. 10 Vithalnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. viii. The assessee further relying on the decision in the case of Venkatswami Naidu & Co, v. CIT 35 ITR 594 (SC) contended that other things being neutral, ownership of land is prima facie presumed to be on capital account unless there are strong circumstances indicating to the contrary. Therefore the onus is on the revenue to establish that the profit earned in a transaction is within the taxing provisions. ix. It was submitted that in A.Y. 2004-05 whe…

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Meerut vs. ITO, Hapur

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 298/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt.Beena A Pillaiay: 2004-05 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward 2 Radhapuri, Hapur Hapur C/O Rk Garg T-314, Ganga Plaza Beguma Bridge Road Meerut Pan: Abbpa 5843 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 50C

…drainage facilities etc. was to earn income by carrying out a commercial venture of selling the plots and not from the sale of agricultural land as an Investment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a classic decision in G. Venkataswami Naidu and Co. vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) has held that a single and isolated transaction which contains the characteristics of trade should be construed as an adventure in ~ 4 ~ the nature of trade if the isolated transaction satisfies the description of an adventure in the nature of trade. When we consider the factual scenario prevailing in this case, it comes to the fore that the…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. Sri. Gautam Maini & Ms. Geetha Maini, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed

ITA 803/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Circle 7(1), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Shri Gautam Maini & Ms. Geetha Maini L/R Of Late Shri H.S.Maini, 2B, Glendale Apartments, Benson Cross Road, Benson Town, Bangalore-560046. … Respondent Pa No.Abxpm 8940 P

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri L.Bharath, CA

…es purchases with a long term goal of earning income from investment and he is not tempted to sell the shares on every rise and fall in the market which are the attributes of a trader. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.Venkata Swami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (35 ITR 594) held that in deciding the character of true nature of such transaction, following factors should be taken into consideration: i. Whether the purchaser was a trader and the purchase of the commodity and its resale were allied to his usual trade or business or were incidental to it. ii. The nature and quantity of the commodity purchased and resold…

DCIT vs. Sri. H.S. Mani

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed

ITA 1165/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Circle 7(1), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Shri Gautam Maini & Ms. Geetha Maini L/R Of Late Shri H.S.Maini, 2B, Glendale Apartments, Benson Cross Road, Benson Town, Bangalore-560046. … Respondent Pa No.Abxpm 8940 P

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri L.Bharath, CA

…es purchases with a long term goal of earning income from investment and he is not tempted to sell the shares on every rise and fall in the market which are the attributes of a trader. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.Venkata Swami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (35 ITR 594) held that in deciding the character of true nature of such transaction, following factors should be taken into consideration: i. Whether the purchaser was a trader and the purchase of the commodity and its resale were allied to his usual trade or business or were incidental to it. ii. The nature and quantity of the commodity purchased and resold…

ACIT, Chennai vs. K.A.Manshoor, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1412/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1412/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri. A.B. Koli, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. K. Balasubramanian, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…ppreciate the fact that if a person invests money in land intending to hold it, enjoys its income for some time, and then sells it at a profit, it would from an adventure in the nature of trade. 4.4 It is submitted that in the case of Venkataswami Naidu & Co (35 ITR 594)(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided a similar issue in favour of revenue. 5. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by treating the income from agricultural land as non-agricultural income. 5.1 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the lands are held as stock-in-trade and hence, the agricultural income earned is incidental…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. Dreamland Build Tech P. Ltd

ITA/886/2015HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 143(3)

…nding of the AO that the Assessee was holding majority of the shares for a period between 10 days and 1 month was factually incorrect. The ITAT also had referred to a number of judgements of the Supreme Court including G. Venkateswami Naidu, Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) and CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC), Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Fraser (1942) 24 TC 498, Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Central) (I97I) 82 ITR 899 (SC). JTA Nos. 829/2015, 908/2015 & 886/2015 Page 5 of 7 o 10.The IT…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -3 vs. Dreamland Build Tech P. Ltd

ITA/829/2015HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 143(3)

…nding of the AO that the Assessee was holding majority of the shares for a period between 10 days and 1 month was factually incorrect. The ITAT also had referred to a number of judgements of the Supreme Court including G. Venkateswami Naidu, Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) and CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC), Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Fraser (1942) 24 TC 498, Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Central) (I97I) 82 ITR 899 (SC). JTA Nos. 829/2015, 908/2015 & 886/2015 Page 5 of 7 o 10.The IT…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 vs. Dreamland Build Tech P. Ltd

ITA/908/2015HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 143(3)

…nding of the AO that the Assessee was holding majority of the shares for a period between 10 days and 1 month was factually incorrect. The ITAT also had referred to a number of judgements of the Supreme Court including G. Venkateswami Naidu, Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) and CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC), Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Fraser (1942) 24 TC 498, Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) and Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Central) (I97I) 82 ITR 899 (SC). JTA Nos. 829/2015, 908/2015 & 886/2015 Page 5 of 7 o 10.The IT…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahajan Industries P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6295/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhoot, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…oration agreement with the Builder, the Assessee had undertaken an 'adventure' in the nature of trade warranting the receipt to be treated as business income. 11. The issue, it appears, is no longer res integra. In G. Venkataswami Naidu and Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594, the Supreme Court observed that while a single "plunge" in the waters of trade may be enough, a mere purchase of property "if that is all that is involved in the plunge may fall short of anything in the nature of trade". It was emphasised that what might be in the nature of trade would depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eveready Industries India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 94/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: MD.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 41(1)Section 43B

…nsaction and converted land into constructed commercial unit and then sold it to outside parties and therefore indulged in an adventure in the nature of trade. ITA No.94/Kol/2012-M/s.Eveready Inds.India Ltd.-A.Y.2005-06 29 (iii) CIT Vs. G. Venkataswami Naidu 35 ITR 594 (SC) wherein it was observed that: "it is impossible to evolve any formula which can be applied in determining the character of isolated transaction which come before the Courts in tax proceedings. It would besides be inexpedient to make any attempt to evolve such a rule or formula. Generally speaking, it would not be difficult to decide whether a…

DCIT, Tambaram vs. R.Vsanthi Ram Narayan, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and cross- objections of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1806/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015 & C.O. Nos.114 & 115/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos.1802 & 1803/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 148

…taken as income from business by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer by applying the judgments of Apex Court in Raja J. Rameswar Rao v. CIT (42 ITR 179), Indramani Bai & Another v. Addl. CIT (200 ITR 594) and in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT (35 ITR 594), found that the profit on sale of land has to be treated as business income. Accordingly, he rejected the claim of the assessee to assess the income on sale of land as long term capital gain. However, on appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) found that on identical set of facts in the case of Shri S. Vasanthakumar in I.T.A. No.1491/Mds/2010…