CIT v. Borhat Tea Company Ltd.

138 ITR 783High Court1982#12138 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 40(a)(3)section 2(14)(iii)(b)relinquishment of rightsection 96section 4(1)section 2(14)(iii)section 45(5)section 10(37)on money receiptjdasection 2(14)transfer of capital asset

Judgments citing CIT v. Borhat Tea Company Ltd.

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Amira Apparels Ltd, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4473/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4473/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Income Tax Officer, Amira Apparels Ltd. Room No.375, Central Revenue Building, Vs. 1/16, East Patel Nagar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaca2992A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 250

…It was the submission that once the said land was classified as agricultural by the revenue authorities then there was no reason why the land could be treated as anything else. The Ld. AR relied on the following cases: i) Borhet T. Company Ltd. reported in 138 ITR 783 (Kol.). Through this case law it was averred that agricultural operational need not be carried out and only the land should be capable of sustaining agriculture for the same to be identified as being agricultural in nature. ii) Hindustan Industrial Resources Limited reported in 335 ITR 77 (Del.). Through this case law it was argued that the c…

Manisha Ashutosh Shewalkar, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 67/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234A

…of the assessee. The manner of usage by purchaser would also be not much material. Considering this binding decision, the claim of the assessee was to be allowed. 10. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Borhat Tea Com. Ltd. (138 ITR 783) which, inter-alia, held that for the purpose of land being agricultural land, actual agricultural operations or cultivation or tilling of the land is not necessary. It is to be seen whether such land is capable of agricultural operations being carried on. Thus, even if the land is capable of agricultural operations, the same would retain the cha…

Pandit Vettrivel, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3 (4), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 146/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.146/Chny/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Shri Pandit Vettrivel Acit बनाम B-272, Ground Floor, B-Block Central Circle-3(4) Rear Flat, Greater Kailash Part I, Chennai-34. / Vs. New Delhi-110 048. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajzpp-4861-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…exemption of LTCG on sale of land, the assessee relied on the same decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Shakuntala Vedachalam (369 ITR 558). The assessee also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High court in Borhat Tea Com. Ltd. (138 ITR 783). The assessee fortified that same on the ground that it has also produced copy of Adangal and letter from Tehsildar which showed that the lands were agricultural in nature. The assessee submitted that the land was classified as an agricultural land in the revenue records. Undisputedly, the land was situated beyond 8 kms from nearest municipality…

Deputy Commissiner of Income Tax, Lic Building vs. M/S Gee Vee Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…lthough after meeting the harvesting wages and other expenditure incurred by the farmer(s) cultivating the land, no surplus/agricultural income was generated. Further as held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High court in case of CIT Vs. Borhat Tea Company Ltd. (1982) 138 ITR 783 (Cal.), That "for the purpose of land being agricultural land, actual operation of cultivation or tilling of the land is not necessary what is to be seen whether such land is capable of agricultural operation being carried on". Thus the said land was an agricultural land as defined in section 2(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the appell…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Vision Estates Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 266/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…lthough after meeting the harvesting wages and other expenditure incurred by the farmer(s) cultivating the land, no surplus/agricultural income was generated. Further as held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High court in case of CIT Vs. Borhat Tea Company Ltd. (1982) 138 ITR 783 (Cal.), That "for the purpose of land being agricultural land, actual operation of cultivation or tilling of the land is not necessary what is to be seen whether such land is capable of agricultural operation being carried on". Thus the said land was an agricultural land as defined in section 2(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the appell…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Chokhi Dhani Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 265/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…lthough after meeting the harvesting wages and other expenditure incurred by the farmer(s) cultivating the land, no surplus/agricultural income was generated. Further as held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High court in case of CIT Vs. Borhat Tea Company Ltd. (1982) 138 ITR 783 (Cal.), That "for the purpose of land being agricultural land, actual operation of cultivation or tilling of the land is not necessary what is to be seen whether such land is capable of agricultural operation being carried on". Thus the said land was an agricultural land as defined in section 2(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the appell…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 264/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…lthough after meeting the harvesting wages and other expenditure incurred by the farmer(s) cultivating the land, no surplus/agricultural income was generated. Further as held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High court in case of CIT Vs. Borhat Tea Company Ltd. (1982) 138 ITR 783 (Cal.), That "for the purpose of land being agricultural land, actual operation of cultivation or tilling of the land is not necessary what is to be seen whether such land is capable of agricultural operation being carried on". Thus the said land was an agricultural land as defined in section 2(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the appell…

DCIT, Chennai vs. S.Amar Narayana Reddy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1263/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1263/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri S. Amar Narayana Reddy, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1), Vs. Flat No.912, 19-8-150, Sai Residency, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 121, Bairagipatteda, Tirupati [Presently At A6, M.G. Road, 7Th Floor, Chennai 34. No. 40, 2Nd Main Road, Kasturbai Nagar, Adayar, Chennai. [Pan:Aieps6384D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. B. Nischal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Anita Sumanth, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Tirupati, Dated 23.03.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. In This Appeal, The Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Treating The Amount Of ₹.3,04,01,161/-, Which Is The Margin/Gains To The Assessee On Sale Of Land As Business Is Not Sustainable. Further, The 2

For Appellant: Dr. B. Nischal, JCITFor Respondent: Dr. Anita Sumanth, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…tural operations not carried in the recent years, but it was not indicating the inability of the land for carrying on the agricultural activity. In this regard it may be relevant to refer to the judicial decisions in the case of CIT Vs Borhat Tea Company Ltd (138 ITR 783) where in Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that for the purpose of land being agricultural land, actual agricultural operation or cultivation of the land is not necessary, and what is to be seen is whether such land is capable of agricultural operation being carried on. 5.6.2 Potential of non-agricultural use is not material for determining the q…

CIT v. Borhat Tea Company Ltd. (138 ITR 783) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax