CIT v. A Mohammed Mohideen

47 ITD 398Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1993#25080 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. A Mohammed Mohideen

Sh. Surender Meena, 36, Pratap Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…positive materials to prove that the assessee intended to trade in such an activity and, in the absence of evidence, the sale of immovable property consisting of land could give rise only to capital accretions”. • B. Narasimha Reddy Vs. ITO (1994) 48 TTJ 329/47 ITD 398 (Hyd) (Trib.) The assessee was never a trader or businessman. Previously he did not carry on any business much less business in real estate. He did not purchase any land or did not sell any land. He was purely an agriculturist. The land in question represents his ancestral property. He thought that he would profit very much or would get maximum by…

Shri Dhiraj Rambhau Lingade L/H of Late Smt. Meenakshi Rambhau Mlingade, Buldhana vs. A.C.I.T., Akola Circle, Akola

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 41/NAG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dhiraj Rambhau Lingade Vs. The Acit L/H Of Late Smt. Meenakshi Rambhau Lingade Akola Circle Buldhana Akola Pan No.:Abopl 3689 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S.C. Thakar, Adv. Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv Revenue By :Smt. Agnes P Thomas (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Thakar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Agnes P Thomas (CIT-DR)

Section 54F

…20 years to dispose off the property. 6 ITA41/NAG/2017 DHIRAJ RAMBHAU LINGADE VS ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA We are in agreement with the various judicial precedents relied upon by the AR wherein it has been held as under: x. B. Narsimha Reddy Vs. ITO (1993) 47 ITD 398 (ITAT Hyderabad) - Sale of agricultural ancestral land situate in municipal limits after plotting it out is not an adventure in the nature of trade, but a transfer of capital asset exigible to capital gains tax. y. CIT Vs. Mohmmed Mohideen (1988) 74 CTR 129 (Madras)- A sale of immovable property may possibly be a trading or commercial transaction,…

Mahaveer Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 209/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (Addl.CIT)

Section 2(14)

…Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 37 ITR 242 (SC)  Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 57 ITR 21 (SC)  CIT Vs. Sureshchand Goyal 298 ITR 277 (MP)  CIT Vs. A Mohammed Mohideen 176 ITR 393 (Madras)  B. Narasimha Reddy Vs. ITO (1994) 48 TTJ 329/47 ITD 398 (Hyd) (Trib.) In view of above, even if it is held that income from sale of the agricultural plots is liable for tax, it can be taxed only as a capital gain and not as a business income. 5. Without prejudice to above, even if it is held that assessee has converted the agricultural land of HUF as stock in trade, its taxability would be governed by…