Venkatesan v. CIT

144 ITR 886High Court1983#14912 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

Judgments citing Venkatesan v. CIT

Sudarsanam, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 22(6), Tambaram

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 707/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:707/Chny/2025 धनि्धरणवरध/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sudarsanam, The Income-Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 22(6), 68/52. Sithivinayagar Koil St., Vs. Tambaram. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. [Pan:Btwps-8389-E] (अपील्थ्/Appellant) (प्थ्/Respondent) अपील्थ्कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate प्थ्कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनव््कीत्रीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 घोरण्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यपीप, चेन् IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI शीमनुकुम्रधिरर, न्धयकसदसएवंशीएस. आर. रघुन्थ्, लेख्सदसकेसमक BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.:707/Chny/2025 धनि्धरणवरध/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 SUDARSANAM, The Income-tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 22(6), 68/52. Sithivinayagar Koil St., vs. Tambaram. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. [PAN:BTWPS-8389-E] (अपील्थ्/Appellant) (प्थ्/Respondent) अपील्थ्कीओरसे/Appellant by : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate प्थ्कीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivas…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Renaissance Cultivation LLP, Pune

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

ITA 1416/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1416/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Renaissance Pune. Cultivation Llp, Pastakiya House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 Pan : Aaofr7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Entire Facts Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1416/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. M/s Renaissance Pune. Cultivation LLP, Pastakiya House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 PAN : AAOFR7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee by Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date of hearing : 16.03.2022 Date of pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Malabar Estates & Industries Ltd

ITA/179/2014HC Kerala28 Oct 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 260A

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ITA NO. 179 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 582/2011 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI KOCHI. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S.COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES & INDUSTRIES LTD. MALABAR HOUSE,W.ISLAND,KOCHI-682003. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL…

M/S Kemfin Services Pvt Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/70/2011HC Karnataka11 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 88E

…17) 393 ITR 395 (CAL), ‘ADITYA MEDISALES LTD. VS. DCIT’, (2016) 242 TAXMAN 228 (GUJ), ‘ CIT VS. JANNHAVI INVESTMENT (P,) LTD.’, (2008) 304 ITR 276 (BOM), ‘RANCHOD BHAI BHAIJIBHAI PATEL VS. CIT’, (1971) ITR 446 (GUJ), ‘M.VENKATESAN VS. CIT’, (1983) 144 ITR 886 (MAD), ‘CIT VS. SMT.M.SUIBAIDA BEEVI’, (1986) 60 ITR 557 (KERALA), ‘CIT VS. VISHWANATH’, (1993) 201 ITR 920 (ALL). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that when stock in trade is converted into shares and is sold, the capital gains have to be completed up to the date of conversion into stock in trade and for…

DCIT, Chennai vs. A.V.Thomas Leather & Allied Products Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2101/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2067/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 2(14)

…ral land. In those factual circumstances, the Madras High Court found that the land is classified as agricultural land and the agricultural operations were carried by the assessee. By placing reliance on the earlier judgments in M. Venkatesan v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 886, CIT v. P.J. Thomas (1995) 211 ITR 897 and in CWT v. E. Udayakumar (2006) 284 ITR 511, it was found that the purpose for which the buyer has purchased the land was totally different from what the transferor had intended to use the 5 I.T.A. No.2067/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.2101/Mds/15 lands in question. Since the assessee intended to cultivate the la…

A.V.Thomas Leather & Allied Products Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2067/CHNY/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2067/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 2(14)

…ral land. In those factual circumstances, the Madras High Court found that the land is classified as agricultural land and the agricultural operations were carried by the assessee. By placing reliance on the earlier judgments in M. Venkatesan v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 886, CIT v. P.J. Thomas (1995) 211 ITR 897 and in CWT v. E. Udayakumar (2006) 284 ITR 511, it was found that the purpose for which the buyer has purchased the land was totally different from what the transferor had intended to use the 5 I.T.A. No.2067/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.2101/Mds/15 lands in question. Since the assessee intended to cultivate the la…

Venkatesan v. CIT (144 ITR 886) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax