CIT v. E. Udayakumar

284 ITR 511High Court2006#7815 most cited

What is CIT v. E. Udayakumar authority for?

The determination of whether land is agricultural or not depends on its status at the time of transfer, and subsequent usage or location in a commercial area is irrelevant. The purpose for which a purchaser buys the land also does not affect its classification as a capital asset at the time of sale.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. E. Udayakumar · 284 ITR 511 · agricultural land · capital asset · time of transfer · subsequent use · commercial area · adventure in nature of trade · section 2(14) · section 2(14)(iii)(b) · section 2(14)(iii)(a) · section 2(13)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)(b)section 2(14)(iii)(a)section 2(13)section 2(14)(iii)section 63section 54bperiod of holdingsection 2(14)section 65transfer of capital assetput to usesection 139(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. E. Udayakumar

Sudarsanam, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 22(6), Tambaram

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 707/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:707/Chny/2025 धनि्धरणवरध/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sudarsanam, The Income-Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 22(6), 68/52. Sithivinayagar Koil St., Vs. Tambaram. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. [Pan:Btwps-8389-E] (अपील्थ्/Appellant) (प्थ्/Respondent) अपील्थ्कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate प्थ्कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनव््कीत्रीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 घोरण्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यपीप, चेन् IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI शीमनुकुम्रधिरर, न्धयकसदसएवंशीएस. आर. रघुन्थ्, लेख्सदसकेसमक BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.:707/Chny/2025 धनि्धरणवरध/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 SUDARSANAM, The Income-tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 22(6), 68/52. Sithivinayagar Koil St., vs. Tambaram. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. [PAN:BTWPS-8389-E] (अपील्थ्/Appellant) (प्थ्/Respondent) अपील्थ्कीओरसे/Appellant by : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate प्थ्कीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivas…

Sri K R Udaya Kumar, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 525/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri K.R. Udaya Kumar, The Assistant # 1047/17B, 2nd Main, Commissioner of 6th Cross, Income Tax, Vidyaranyapuram, Circle – 2(1), Mysore – 570 008. Vs. Mysore. PAN: AAMPU2279D APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee by Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue by Baseganni, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 01-12-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee ag…

Ishwar Dwellings Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 44/LKW/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(14)Section 263

…rade. In other words, the price paid is not decisive to say whether the land is agricultural or not. I.T.A. No.44/Lkw/2021 Assessment Year:2015-16 14 6.7 We may refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CWT vs. E. Udayakumar (2006) 284 ITR 511 (Mad) where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240 : (2004) 270 ITR 40 (P&H) and has observed and held as under: "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT vs. Smt Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240 : (2004) 270 ITR 40…

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 306/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e transaction amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade. In other words, the price paid is not decisive to say whether the land is agricultural or not. 9.13. We may refer to a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 where the Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40/[2003] 133 Taxman 712and has observed and held as under : "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240: (2004) 270 ITR 40(P&H), wherein it is held that the l…

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 305/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e transaction amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade. In other words, the price paid is not decisive to say whether the land is agricultural or not. 9.13. We may refer to a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 where the Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40/[2003] 133 Taxman 712and has observed and held as under : "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240: (2004) 270 ITR 40(P&H), wherein it is held that the l…

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 304/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e transaction amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade. In other words, the price paid is not decisive to say whether the land is agricultural or not. 9.13. We may refer to a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 where the Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40/[2003] 133 Taxman 712and has observed and held as under : "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240: (2004) 270 ITR 40(P&H), wherein it is held that the l…

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 303/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e transaction amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade. In other words, the price paid is not decisive to say whether the land is agricultural or not. 9.13. We may refer to a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 where the Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40/[2003] 133 Taxman 712and has observed and held as under : "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240: (2004) 270 ITR 40(P&H), wherein it is held that the l…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Renaissance Cultivation LLP, Pune

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

ITA 1416/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1416/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Renaissance Pune. Cultivation Llp, Pastakiya House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 Pan : Aaofr7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Entire Facts Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…pon the subject of transfer answering or not answering the definition of capital asset at the time of transfer and at no other point of time." In the subsequent decisions reported in CIT v. P.J. Thomas [1995] 211 ITR 897 (Mad) and (CWT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 (Mad)), it was held that the subsequent treatment has no relevance in the matter of considering a capital asset. It is no doubt true that the purpose for which the purchaser had purchased was totally different from what the transferor had intended to use the lands in question but as held in the decisions cited above, with the admitted finding tha…

Vinod Parasmal Jain, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 3, Thane

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

ITA 1883/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vinod Parasmal Jain, Dcit, Circle 3, Thane, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle 1302/A, Vikas Palms, Dr. Vs. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Civil Industrial Estate, Road No. 16Z, Hospital, Thane(W)-400 604. Thane-400 601 Pan No. Aaopj 9371 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 2(14)

…action amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade. In other words, the price paid is not decisive to say whether the land is agricultural or not. 50. We may refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CWT vs. E. Udayakumar (2006) 284 ITR 511 (Mad) where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240 : (2004) 270 ITR 40 (P&H) and has observed and held as under : "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240 : (2004) 270 ITR…

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

…ubject of transfer answering or not answering the definition of capital asset at the time of transfer and at no other point of time." In the subsequent decisions reported in CIT v. P.J. Thomas [1995] 211 ITR 897 (Mad) and (CWT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 (Mad)), it was held that the subsequent treatment has no relevance in the matter of considering a capital asset. It is no doubt true that the purpose for which the purchaser had purchased was totally different from what the I.T.A. No.179/2014 -23- transferor had intended to use the lands in question but as held in the decisions cited abov…

T.S.R.Khannaiyann, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, both the above tax case (appeals) are allowed

ITA 804/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 804/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. Sasikumar, IRS, JCIT

…year 2007-08 was considered for assessment only under the head Capital gains. As per assessee, land was held by him as investments and not as stock in trade. Relying on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. E. Udayakumar (2006) (284 ITR 511) assessee argued that purpose for which the purchaser intended to use the land was not relevant for determining the nature of the land sold. 8. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering the arguments of the assessee was of the opinion that on :- 8 -: sale of 4.34 acres of land at a price of "5,26,80,000/- to M/s. Hindus…

DCIT, Chennai vs. A.V.Thomas Leather & Allied Products Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2101/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2067/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 2(14)

…classified as agricultural land and the agricultural operations were carried by the assessee. By placing reliance on the earlier judgments in M. Venkatesan v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 886, CIT v. P.J. Thomas (1995) 211 ITR 897 and in CWT v. E. Udayakumar (2006) 284 ITR 511, it was found that the purpose for which the buyer has purchased the land was totally different from what the transferor had intended to use the 5 I.T.A. No.2067/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.2101/Mds/15 lands in question. Since the assessee intended to cultivate the land and in fact, agricultural operations were carried on, the High Court found that th…

A.V.Thomas Leather & Allied Products Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2067/CHNY/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2067/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 2(14)

…classified as agricultural land and the agricultural operations were carried by the assessee. By placing reliance on the earlier judgments in M. Venkatesan v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 886, CIT v. P.J. Thomas (1995) 211 ITR 897 and in CWT v. E. Udayakumar (2006) 284 ITR 511, it was found that the purpose for which the buyer has purchased the land was totally different from what the transferor had intended to use the 5 I.T.A. No.2067/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.2101/Mds/15 lands in question. Since the assessee intended to cultivate the land and in fact, agricultural operations were carried on, the High Court found that th…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1560/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. A.B. Koli, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A
Section 133(6)Section 2(14)

…an adventure in the nature of trade. In 25 ITA No.1560/Mds/2015. other words, the price paid is not decisive to say whether the land is agricultural or not. 7.13 We may refer to a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 where the Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40/[2003] 133 Taxman 712and has observed and held as under : "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240: (2004) 270 ITR 40(P&H), wherein it is held that th…

CIT v. E. Udayakumar (284 ITR 511) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax