How many judgments cite CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi?

15 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi (404 ITR 173), spanning 2020 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144C(13), Section 2(14)(iii)(a), Section 2(14)(iii)(b), Section 50C.

CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi

404 ITR 173High Court2018#7562 most cited

What is CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi authority for?

If land is recorded as agricultural land in revenue records, it is considered agricultural land for tax purposes, entitling the assessee to exemption from tax.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi · 404 ITR 173 · agricultural land · revenue records · exemption from tax · capital asset · section 2(14)(iii) · taxability of agricultural land

Also reported as

89 Taxmann.com 406

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(14)(iii)(a)Section 2(14)(iii)(b)Section 50C

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)(a)section 2(14)(iii)(b)section 96 section 2(14)(iii)section 2(47)(v)jda section 53 section 2(14)clarificatory amendment transfer of capital asset assistant director cancellation of registration

Judgments citing CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi

Thomas Cherian, Thane vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Txn

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 776/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Thomas Cherian .......... Appellant A-2, Happy House, Sector A9, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Thane 400703 [Pan: Apjpc6676G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: Shri Vardhaman Jain, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 53C

…agricultural land placing reliance on the following decisions: - i) CIT v. Venkateswara Hospital. 264 Taxman 90 (Mad) ii) SLP dismissed by Hon SC in the above case 264 taxman 89 iii) CIT v. Debbie Alemao (Smt.) 331 ITR 59 (Bom) iv) CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi, 404 ITR 173 (Mad) v) PCIT v. Anthony John Pereira 425 ITR 134(Bom) vi) PCIT V K. P. R. Developers 311 CTR 832 (Mad) vii) WTO V H. V. Mungale 32 CTR 301 (Bom) viii) ACIT V Ashok W. Wesavkar (Mum) (TM) ITA No.5147/2017 dated 25.01.2023 4. It was further contended that the mere fact that the appellant erroneously offered the gains arising out of sale of agricul…

Income Tax Officer, Koramangala Bangalore vs. Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore

ITA 653/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ITA Nos.130/Bang/2023 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.653/Bang/2023 Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.130/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. SPR Spirits Private Limited (Formerly known as SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) No.F-113, 2CD, Central Chambers 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Gandhinagar Bengaluru 560 009 Karnataka PAN NO: AAECS2377M APPELLANT DCIT Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru RESPONDENT ITO Ward-5(2)(1) Bengaluru APPELLANT ITA Nos.653/Bang/2023…

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

ITA 130/BANG/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ITA Nos.130/Bang/2023 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.653/Bang/2023 Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.130/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. SPR Spirits Private Limited (Formerly known as SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) No.F-113, 2CD, Central Chambers 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Gandhinagar Bengaluru 560 009 Karnataka PAN NO : AAECS2377M APPELLANT DCIT Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru RESPONDENT ITO Ward-5(2)(1) Bengaluru APPELLANT ITA Nos.653/Bang/2023…

Precot Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 132/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.132/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Precot Limited Sf No.559/4, D Block, 4Th Floor, Income Tax, Hanudev Info Park, Nava India Road Corporate Circle-2, Udaiyampalayam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 028. Pan : Aabcp 3038K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 10(14)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…ng case laws:- i) PCIT Vs Anthony John Pereira reported in (2020) 425 ITR 134(Bom) vide order dated 04.02.2020 ii) CIT Vs P.J.Thomas (1995) 211 ITR 897 in Tax Case Appeal No.553 of 1992 vide order dated 18.08.1992. 9 iii) CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar Rathi (2018) 404 ITR 173 (Mad) vide order dated 07.12.2017. 10. On the other hand, the learned Sr.DR Mr.Hema Bhupal, JCIT argued that facts are admitted and there is no dispute, but interpretation of the provisions of clause(a) to section 2(14)(iii) of the Act is not what the learned counsel is interpreting. He argued that provision has to be read as complete and tha…

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

…nly to facilitate the sale of subject property to a corporate entity/non-agriculturist. These observations of the Tribunal have been extracted in the earlier part of this order. Page 65 of 66 24. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi (404 ITR 173)(Mad) held that if the land is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records, it would only enure in favour of the assessee as agricultural land and assessee is entitled to get exemption from tax., 25. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in Tulla Veerender v. Addl. CIT (160 TTJ 435)(Hyd) held that when the land which does not fall under th…

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

…ion was done only to facilitate the sale of subject property to a corporate entity/non- agriculturist. These observations of the Tribunal have been extracted in the earlier part of this order. 24. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi (404 ITR 173)(Mad) held that if the land is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records, it would only enure in favour of the assessee as agricultural land and assessee is entitled to get exemption from tax., ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 75 of 78 25. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in Tulla Veerender v. Addl. CIT (160 TTJ 435)(Hyd) held t…

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…ion was done only to facilitate the sale of subject property to a corporate entity/non- agriculturist. These observations of the Tribunal have been extracted in the earlier part of this order. 24. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi (404 ITR 173)(Mad) held that if the land is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records, it would only enure in favour of the assessee as agricultural land and assessee is entitled to get exemption from tax., 25. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in Tulla Veerender v. Addl. CIT (160 TTJ 435)(Hyd) held that when the land which does not fall under th…

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…ion was done only to facilitate the sale of subject property to a corporate entity/non- agriculturist. These observations of the Tribunal have been extracted in the earlier part of this order. 24. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi (404 ITR 173)(Mad) held that if the land is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records, it would only enure in favour of the assessee as agricultural land and assessee is entitled to get exemption from tax., 25. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in Tulla Veerender v. Addl. CIT (160 TTJ 435)(Hyd) held that when the land which does not fall under th…

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…ion was done only to facilitate the sale of subject property to a corporate entity/non- agriculturist. These observations of the Tribunal have been extracted in the earlier part of this order. 24. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi (404 ITR 173)(Mad) held that if the land is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records, it would only enure in favour of the assessee as agricultural land and assessee is entitled to get exemption from tax., 25. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in Tulla Veerender v. Addl. CIT (160 TTJ 435)(Hyd) held that when the land which does not fall under th…

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…ion was done only to facilitate the sale of subject property to a corporate entity/non- agriculturist. These observations of the Tribunal have been extracted in the earlier part of this order. 24. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi (404 ITR 173)(Mad) held that if the land is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records, it would only enure in favour of the assessee as agricultural land and assessee is entitled to get exemption from tax., 25. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in Tulla Veerender v. Addl. CIT (160 TTJ 435)(Hyd) held that when the land which does not fall under th…

Mr K. P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 977/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA No.977/Bang/2019 Mr. K.P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mr. K.P. Manjunatha Reddy No.84, Kaveri, 17th Main, 19th Cross HSR 3rd Sector ITO Ward-4(3)(2) Vs. Bangalore 560 102 Bangalore PAN NO : ARDPM9595L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Thirumala Naidu, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appe…

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2223/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

…on was done only to facilitate the sale of subject property to a corporate entity/non- agriculturist. These observations of the Tribunal have been extracted in the earlier part of this order. 24. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi (404 ITR 173)(Mad) held that if the land is recorded as agricultural land in ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 Page 81 of 82 the revenue records, it would only enure in favour of the assessee as agricultural land and assessee is entitled to get exemption from tax., 25. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in Tulla Veerender v. Addl. CIT (160 TTJ 435)(Hyd) held t…

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2222/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

Harvinder Kumar Sahni, Lakhimpur-Kheri vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 28/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Harvinder Kumar Sahni V. The Dy. Cit Punjabi Colony Sitapur Gola Gokaran Nath Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Autps9076M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 03 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 03 2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R

Section 2(14)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Harvinder Kumar Sahni v. The Dy. CIT Punjabi Colony Sitapur Gola Gokaran Nath Lakhimpur Kheri TAN/PAN:AUTPS9076M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date of hearing: 16 03 2020 Date of pronouncement: 19 03 2020 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Bareilly dated 30/9/2015 for assessment year 2011-12, taking the following groun…