Abhijit Subash Gaikwad v. DCIT

70 SOT 429Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#18287 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54B

Issues it is cited on

section 54agricultural incomenotice under section 148reassessment proceedingssection 148transfersection 147section 143(3)section 143documentsection 14total income

Judgments citing Abhijit Subash Gaikwad v. DCIT

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 149/DDN/2025[2106-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2106-2017

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54E

…tinctions from the co-owner's case, and the applicability of judicial precedents. The assessee shall be afforded due opportunity of being heard and shall cooperate by producing all requisite details. ii) Abhijit Subhash Gaikwad vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) reported in 70 SOT 429. 22. The judicial precedents have laid down that the expression 'agricultural land' though not defined under the Income-tax Act, but would be applicable to such land where the actual user of the land was for agricultural purposes in recent times. Just because the land was used for agricultural purposes in the remote past or it continues to be asse…

SHRI RAVI PRAKASH LANGER PROP M/S LANGER AUTO SALES & SEVICES, UJJAIN,UJJAIN vs. ACIT 2 (1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 106/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Apurva Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54B

…fore the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). The Ld. D.R. relied upon decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Siddharth J. Desai 139 ITR 628 as well as the decision of Pune Tribunal in case of Abhijit Subhash Gaikwad vs. DCIT 259/70 SOT 429. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that from the sale deed as well as the land records the assessee has clearly set out that the land was related to agricultural land only. This fact was also ascertain by the order of CIT(A), Ujjjain in respect of assessee’s Wealth…

SHAILESH D. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-17, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1561/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 283

…s, even though a huge quantity of aforesaid products has been alleged to have been sold. 12. As regards the reliance placed on 7/12 extracts and land revenue records, we find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Abhijit Subash Gaikwad vs DCIT, (2015) 70 SOT 429 (Pune-Trib.) held that in absence of fulfilment of fundamental fact that land was used for agriculture, merely mentioning of land as agricultural land in purchase deed or sale deed or even in revenue records cannot establish the case of the assessee that land sold by it was agricultural land. However, we find that none of the aforesaid aspects hav…

SHAILESH D. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -17, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1560/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 283

…s, even though a huge quantity of aforesaid products has been alleged to have been sold. 12. As regards the reliance placed on 7/12 extracts and land revenue records, we find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Abhijit Subash Gaikwad vs DCIT, (2015) 70 SOT 429 (Pune-Trib.) held that in absence of fulfilment of fundamental fact that land was used for agriculture, merely mentioning of land as agricultural land in purchase deed or sale deed or even in revenue records cannot establish the case of the assessee that land sold by it was agricultural land. However, we find that none of the aforesaid aspects hav…

NOSHIR DARABSHAW TALATI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR 7(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1516/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250Section 45

…or any agricultural activity was ever conducted on it. 9. At this stage, it would be relevant to observe that after conclusion of hearing of appeal initially on 31/03/2022, a decision of coordinate bench of Tribunal in Abhijit Subash Gaikwad vs DCIT, (2015) 70 SOT 429 (Pune- Trib.) came to the notice of the bench. In the interest of fair play and justice, the appeal was again fixed for hearing to provide an opportunity to the litigating parties to examine the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal and make their submissions. 10. When the appeal was fixed for hearing, learned AR reiterated t…

Abhijit Subash Gaikwad v. DCIT (70 SOT 429) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax