Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)
Shiv Lal, Inder Nath And Satnam Singh vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 June, 1982 cites

P. M. Mohammad Meerakhan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ernakulam on 12 February, 1969

Development Association [1981 12 ITR 431 (MP), Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 179 (SC) and P.N. Mohd. Meerakhan (supra), his order is liable to be cancelled and relief be allowed as per the claim of the assessee which is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 and that of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Deep Chandra & Co. v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 716 and that of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S.S. Thiagarajan [1981] 129 ITR 115. On the other hand, Shri Kulwant Singh, the learned departmental representative, relied on the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). According to him the purchase was made by the assessees with the intention to re-sell later at a profit. The assessees could not make out any case in support of the claim made by them and as such, the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) as supported by the case-laws cited by him are liable to be upheld.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 96 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Jawahar Lal Rastogi on 7 May, 1970

5. Shri Sunil Vasudeva, the learned counsel of the assessee, and Shri Kulwant Singh, the learned departmental representative, were heard at lengths. The arguments of the learned counsel of the assessee proceeded on the same lines as advanced before the Commissioner Appeas). Emphasis was, however, laid on the facts that the transaction was an isolatated one ; the purchases was made out of the respective capitals of the assessees ; and the land was parcelled out in plots by making demarcations for roads, lanes, parks and open space but no improvement was made on the land, Since facts of the present case are entirely distinguishable from the cases relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), namely, CIT v. Jawahar.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - J C Shah - Full Document

Janki Ram Bahadur Ram vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calcutta on 31 March, 1965

The abandonment of the project was said to be due to the Indo-Pak war. It is also established that a fertilizer plant was set up by the Government of India in the vicinity and at the same time a military base was also set up in the adjoining land. From these facts it is necessary to find out what was the real objective of the assessees in acquiring this land and whether such acquisition amounts to an adventure in the nature of trade. The Supreme Court in the case of Janki Ram (supra) elaborately discussed the factors to be taken into account while arriving at such an inference. It has clearly indicated that a single factor is not conclusive to make an inference. The mere fact that the assessee made a profitable bargain when it purchased the property and that it had desired to sell the property if a favourable offer was forthcoming could not without other circumstances justify an inference that the assessee intended by purchasing the property to start a venure in the nature of trade. The Supreme Court further held that it was for the revenue to establish that the profit earned in a transaction was within the taxing provisions. The nature of the transaction should be determined by a consideration of all the facts and circumstances which were brought on the record of the income-tax authorities. But a transaction of purchase of land cannot be assumed without more to be a venture in the nature of trade. The profit motive in entering a transaction is not decisive, for an accretion to capital does not become taxable income merely because an asset was acquired in the expectation that it may be sold at a profit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 177 - J C Shah - Full Document

Deep Chandra And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 December, 1974

Similarly the Allahabad High Court in the case of Deep Chandra (supra) held that land was not a commercial commodity. Land alone was also not a trade in itself. An investment in purchasing a property was also made with a view to earning return on the sum invested. Therefore, the mere fact that a person invested money for the purpose of re-selling whenever a suitable opportunity arises did not give a sufficient ground to hold that the transaction was in the nature of trade.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 24 - Full Document
1