2001) 250 ITR 131 (Del.), CIT vs Harbhagwan (1998) 145 CTR (P & H) 332, Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. Addl.CIT

81 ITR 446High Court1971#21427 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing 2001) 250 ITR 131 (Del.), CIT vs Harbhagwan (1998) 145 CTR (P & H) 332, Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. Addl.CIT

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

…e deed. Admittedly, KSIDC, in due course of time, upon purchase from the assessee, converted the schedule property into an industrial estate. He argues that the case on hand does not satisfy the applicable cumulative tests 4 (1983) 139 ITR 628 5 (1971) 81 ITR 446 (Guj) I.T.A. No.179/2014 -14- referred to above and the findings recorded by the Tribunal, though are findings of fact, still, the findings are unavailable to the admitted circumstances of the case. It is contended that barren land cannot be included as agricultural land. According to Revenue, the order under appeal suffers from perversity an…

Mr. Jaiprakash A. Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 22 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1505/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma, DR

Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…of such asset. The ratio laid down in B.N. Vyas vs CIT (1986) 159 ITR 141 (Guj.), CIT vs N.N. Mohan & Sons (2001) 250 ITR 131 (Del.), CIT vs Harbhagwan (1998) 145 CTR (P & H) 332, Syndicate Bank Ltd. vs Addl.CIT 155 ITR 681 (Kar.), Ranchodbhai B. Patel vs CIT 81 ITR 446 (Guj.), CIT vs M. Mr. Jaiprakash A. Mishra 9 Rammaiya Reddy 158 ITR 611 (Kar.), CIT vs Smt. M. Subaida Beebi 160 ITR 557 (Ker.), CIT vs Steel Group Ltd. 131 ITR 234 (Cal.), CIT vs Duncan Brothers & Company Ltd. 209 ITR 44 (Cal.), Arun Suuny vs DCIT (2009) 184 taxman 498 (Ker.) further supports the case of the assessee. Respectfully following the…

Asst. CIT, Circle-6, Pune vs. Sakal Papers Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 926/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok KotharyFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 80I

…transfer of agricultural land, where agricultural land, which was not a capital asset, subsequently became a capital asset due to the amendment to the A.Y.2006-07 Income- Tax Act. In those cases, the Gujarat High Court in Ranchodbhai Bhaijibhai Paid Vs. CIT 81 ITR 446, followed the Bombay High Court in Keshavji Karsondas vs. CIT 207 ITR 737, had held that an asset cannot be acquired first as a non-capital asset at a different point of time and again as a capital asset at a different point of time. There can be only one acquisition of the asset and that is when the assessee acquires it for the first time, irresp…

Radu Ram Jat HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 182/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal & Shri O.P. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A, Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 2(14)(iii)Section 254Section 54BSection 54F

…8 kms from the local limits of JMC and thus, fell within the scope of definition of “Agricultural land”. The contention raised above is based on the well settled position of law in this regard. In the case of Ranchhodbhai Bhajibhai Patel Vs. CIT reported in 81 ITR 446, (Case Laws PB 15-18) the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that, the material date with reference to which the question whether a particular land which has been sold is agricultural land or not is to be decided, is the date of sale. Further, in the case of Manibhai Motibhai Patel Vs. CIT reported in 131 ITR 120 (Case Laws PB 19-27) it has been…