Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)
Pydah Suryanarayana Murthy vs Income-Tax Officer. on 9 November, 1995 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. on 21 October, 1965

In the case also, the assessee has not purchased the land in question, but has got the same as ancestral land on partition of the larger HUF. Applying the ratio of the said decision to the facts of the case on hand, the assessee has sold his land in the case before us only for a consideration of Rs. 75,000 per acre, to Shri Gopala Krishna and it is the said Gopala Krishna, who sold the land in question after arranging necessary improvements and layout, in terms of plots of various sizes for higher price, and in that context, it is the said Gopala Krishna, who can be said to have engaged in an adventure in the nature of trade by purchasing the land from the assessee and after improvements and lay out, selling the same in the form of plots to various purchasers.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 61 - Full Document

Smt. Indramani Bai And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Addl.) on 18 February, 1993

While in the former before the Allahabad High Court Shashi Kumar Agarwals case (supra) the property was gifted in favour of the assessee therein, who get the layout, carved the land into some plots and roads and through a broker sold the plots, in the latter case before the Supreme Court Smt. Indramani Bais (supra) the property was purchased by the assessee, who within a short time of purchase carved out the land into plots and sold them. Similarly, while in the former, the Allahabad High Court held that the activity could not be termed as an adventure in the nature of trade since the property was gifted in favour of the assessee, and as such there could not have been any intention for the assessee to re-sell at the time of acquisition of the same, in the latter case, the Supreme Court branded the activity of the assessee before it as that of an adventure in the nature of trade.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Bhogilal H. Patel vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) ... on 8 August, 1969

In the case of Bhogilal H. Patel (supra), the Bombay High Court held that where all the circumstances indicate that the agriculturist purchased lands merely to augment his agricultural holdings not based on its potential future value and sold it when he required money, there was no adventure in the nature of trade. The Court noticed in that case that throughout the period, the lands were in the possession of the assessee, who cultivated them and received income from them. The Court also held in that case that the burden lies entirely on the department to establish that the land was purchased with a view to trade, and the said burden was not discharged.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

B. Narasimha Reddy vs Income-Tax Officer on 18 December, 1992

For that matter, inasmuch as in the case on hand in pursuance of the agreement dated 7-7-1982 it was the said Gopala Krishna who has spent on layout and improvements to land in question and the assessee merely lent his name to various applications and documents since the property stood in his name and as such has not incurred any expenditure either on layout or improvement to the land, assessee stands on a better footing, as compared to the case before the Tribunal in B. Narasimha Reddys case (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 14 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1   2 Next