How many judgments cite CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd.?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd. (220 ITR 43), spanning 2015 to 2024.

CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd.

220 ITR 43Supreme Court of India1996#4645 most cited

What is CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd. authority for?

Whether land is agricultural or a capital asset is a question of fact determined by a realistic consideration of all facts and circumstances, including the understanding of the parties to the transaction.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gemini Pictures Circuit P. Ltd. · 220 ITR 43 · SC · agricultural land · capital asset · question of fact · totality of facts · realistic view · contracting parties understanding

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 clarificatory amendment section 2(14)section 53 transfer of capital asset assistant director cancellation of registration

Judgments citing CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd.

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…., as the contracting parties understood it as. The onus to prove it’s claims, needless to add, is on the assessee. This represents well-settled law, for which we refer to some judicially binding precedents, viz. CIT vs. Gemini Pictures Circuit P. Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 43 (SC); Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim vs. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC); G.M. Omer Khan vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 269 (SC); CWT vs. Officer-in-Charge (CW), Paigah [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC); Kalpetta Estates Ltd. vs. CIT [1990] 185 ITR 318 (Ker), quoting, for authority, from the last: ‘Whether a piece of land is agricultural in character or a capital asset is…

GEORGE STANLEY,THIRUVALLA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 587/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Telma Raju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 54F

DCIT, COCHIN vs. SHRI M GEORGE ( MUKKADAYIL JOSEPH GEORGE), COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

…of view. The court has to answer the question on a consideration of all of them-a process of evaluation. The inference has to be drawn on a cumulative consideration of all the relevant facts. (see pg.637B, C) (C) CIT vs. Gemini PicturesCircuitP. Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 43 (SC): It was held as: ‘The question whether a particular land is agricultural land has to be decided on a totality of the relevant facts and circumstances. There may be circumstances for and against. They have to be weighed together and a reasonable decision arrived at. One has to take a realistic view and see how the persons selling and purchasin…

L P RAMKUMAR (HUF),,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD - 3 (2),, TRICHY

ITA 2339/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Ms.L. Sweety, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

….1,08,88,206 to set up for the educational institution, which means that the assessee has sold these lands with an intention to make huge profit. 4.1 The AO also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gemini Pictures Circuit Pvt. Ltd., 220 ITR 43 and finally, the AO noted that the income admitted by the assessee from sale of agricultural land is Rs.1,37,72,234/- is treated as income under the head ‘short term capital gain’. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) noted the facts noted by AO and report of Tahsildar and noted that lands shown as agricultural lands…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/175/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

…it was not an agricultural land. Assessee challenged the same before the High Court and High Court held the land as agricultural land. The revenue challenged High Court’s decision in the 8 [1996] 220 ITR 43 I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 23 Supreme Court of India…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PATTABHIRAM

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/179/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.ANANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/176/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PRABHAVATHY

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/177/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAM

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/520/2014HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/298/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

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

…ural and there cannot be exemption u/s.2(14) from the capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); Page 43 of 66 iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay c…

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

…ural and there cannot be exemption u/s.2(14) from the capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 50 of 78 ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, 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

…ural and there cannot be exemption u/s.2(14) from the capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 50 of 78 ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, t…

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)

…ural and there cannot be exemption u/s.2(14) from the capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains ta…

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)

…ural and there cannot be exemption u/s.2(14) from the capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains ta…

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)

…ural and there cannot be exemption u/s.2(14) from the capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains ta…

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)

…ural and there cannot be exemption u/s.2(14) from the capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains ta…

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)

…ural and there cannot be exemption u/s.2(14) from the capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains ta…

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

…ural and there cannot be exemption u/s.2(14) from the capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains ta…

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

…ural and there cannot be exemption u/s.2(14) from the capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains ta…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2