CIT v. Manilal Somnath

106 ITR 917High Court1977#6211 most cited

What is CIT v. Manilal Somnath authority for?

The potential non-agricultural value of land, or the large price a purchaser is willing to pay due to market conditions, does not change its essential character as agricultural land at the time of sale, provided it was used for agricultural purposes.

18

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. Manilal Somnath · agricultural land · capital asset · period of holding · transfer of capital asset · non-agricultural value · sale of land · section 2(14)(iii)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 144BSection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 54B

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Manilal Somnath

Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi, Surat vs. ACIT Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

…following case laws: CIT Vs. Rajshibhai Meramanbhai Odedra [2014] 42 Taxmann.Com 497 (i) (Gujarat H.C.). (ii) CIT Vs. Siddharth Desai [1982] 10 Taxman 1 (Guj. HC) (iii) CIT Vs. Vajulal Chunilal [1979] 1 Taxman 438 (Guj. HC) (iv) CIT Vs. Manilal Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917 (Guj. HC) (v) Pr. CIT, Rajkot -1 Vs. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 164 (Guj. H.C.) (vi) Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi Vs. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 664 (Guj. H.C.) ITA No.126/Srt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Bhadrabala D Joshi (vii) Shri Daxeshkumar G. Suthar Vs. ITO, Wd- 6(2), Surat (ITA No. 1540/Ahd/2016 (ITAT, Surat Bench). 5.1 The Ld. A.R. submi…

Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 310/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

…of the land as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT v. Kalathingal Faisal Rahman [2019] 416 ITR 311, wherein the Hon'ble High Court quoted the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Manila Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 946 wherein it is observed that the potential value of the property of nonagricultural consideration and large price, obtained by reason of the market conditions would not detract from the essential nature of the land at the time of the sale and the use to which it…

ACIT, Cochin vs. Sri.P.C.Jose, Cochin

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das &
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 40

…of the land as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT v. Kalathingal Faisal Rahman [2019] 416 ITR 311, wherein the Hon'ble High Court quoted the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Manila Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 946 wherein it is observed that the potential value of the property of nonagricultural consideration and large price, obtained by reason of the market conditions would not detract from the essential nature of the land at the time of the sale and the use to which it…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Sharad Goel, Raipur

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 93/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 250(4)Section 45(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायपुर न्यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री अरुण खोड़वपया, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.93/RPR/2020 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) ACIT-1(1), Raipur Vs Shri Sharad Goel, Lodhipara Chowk, Raipur (CG) PAN No. :AGVPG 5894 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. : Shri Amit M. Jain, Advocate धििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by राजस्ि की ओर से /Revenue by : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR सुििाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date…

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

…ly as classified in the Revenue records, but also it was subjected to the payment of land revenue and that it was actually and ordinarily used for agricultural purpose at the relevant time. 9.11. We may also refer to the case of CIT v. Manilal Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917(Guj.), wherein the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed that the potential non- agricultural value of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 9.12. We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR…

The ITO, Ward-1(3), Jamnagar vs. Shri Maldebhai Naranbhai Varotaria, Jamnagar

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

ITA 169/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 169/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013 Income-Tax Officer, Shri Maldebhai Naranbhai Varotaria, Ward-1(3), Vs. Madhav Corporation, Jamnagar 3Rd Floor, Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Corner, Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.R
Section 54BSection 54B(1)

…non-agricultural in character at the relevant time. It must be borne in mind, as was held by this court in Chhotalal Prabhudas v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 631, that if the land is actually used for agricultural purposes as indicated in Manilal Somnath's case [1977] 106 ITR 917 (Guj) or by the Supreme Court in Begumpet Palace's case [1976] 105 ITR 133 , at least, prima facie it can be said to be land which is either actually used or ordinarily used or meant to be used for agricultural purposes. If it is actually used at the relevant date for agricultural purposes and there are no special features, as for example, a buil…

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

…nly as classified in the Revenue records, but also it was subjected to the payment of land revenue and that it was actually and ordinarily used for agricultural purpose at the relevant time. 6.5. We may also refer to the case of CIT vs. Manilal Somnath (1977) 106 ITR 917 (Guj), wherein the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court observed that the potential non- agricultural value of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 6.6. We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma vs. CIT (1994)…

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

…was subjected to the :- 25 -: ITA Nos.215, 303, 304, 305 & 306/Bang/2020 payment of land revenue and that it was actually and ordinarily used for agricultural purpose at the relevant time. 9.11. We may also refer to the case of CIT v. Manilal Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917(Guj.), wherein the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed that the potential non- agricultural value of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 9.12. We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR…

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

…was subjected to the :- 25 -: ITA Nos.215, 303, 304, 305 & 306/Bang/2020 payment of land revenue and that it was actually and ordinarily used for agricultural purpose at the relevant time. 9.11. We may also refer to the case of CIT v. Manilal Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917(Guj.), wherein the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed that the potential non- agricultural value of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 9.12. We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR…

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

…was subjected to the :- 25 -: ITA Nos.215, 303, 304, 305 & 306/Bang/2020 payment of land revenue and that it was actually and ordinarily used for agricultural purpose at the relevant time. 9.11. We may also refer to the case of CIT v. Manilal Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917(Guj.), wherein the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed that the potential non- agricultural value of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 9.12. We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR…

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

…was subjected to the :- 25 -: ITA Nos.215, 303, 304, 305 & 306/Bang/2020 payment of land revenue and that it was actually and ordinarily used for agricultural purpose at the relevant time. 9.11. We may also refer to the case of CIT v. Manilal Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917(Guj.), wherein the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed that the potential non- agricultural value of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 9.12. We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) 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 Assessee by : Mr. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, AR Revenue by : Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR Date of Hearing : 23/02/2022 Date of pronouncement : 16/03/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee…

G Vijay Padma, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 3295/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaismt. G Vijay Padma, No.206, 1St Floor, 10Th D Main, 5Th Cross, 1St Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 011 Pan Abcpv 8123E ….Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Bengaluru. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri P. R. Mathad, C.A. Revenue By: Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri P. R. Mathad, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Smt. G Vijay Padma, No.206, 1st Floor, 10th D Main, 5th Cross, 1st Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 011 PAN ABCPV 8123E ….Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Bengaluru. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri P. R. Mathad, C.A. Revenue By: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 01.09.2020. Date of Pronouncement : 11.09.2020. O R D E R PER SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner…

T. Raghavendra Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1058/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri. Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri. L. Bharath, CA
Section 143(3)Section 148

…uring the years from 1929 it was being used for agricultural purposes. The question of the land under consideration being wanted by a co-operative society or being surrounded by housing development was considered by this court in CIT v. Manilal Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917 and that factor of development coming up to the land in question was discounted by the court. In Manilal Somaath's case [1977] 106 ITR 917 (Guj.), this court also pointed out that though the land might have potential non- agricultural value, that factor did not mean that the land had ceased to be agricultural land or that it had lost the characte…

T. Prasanna Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1048/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri. Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri. L. Bharath, CA
Section 143(3)Section 148

…uring the years from 1929 it was being used for agricultural purposes. The question of the land under consideration being wanted by a co-operative society or being surrounded by housing development was considered by this court in CIT v. Manilal Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917 and that factor of development coming up to the land in question was discounted by the court. In Manilal Somaath's case [1977] 106 ITR 917 (Guj.), this court also pointed out that though the land might have potential non- agricultural value, that factor did not mean that the land had ceased to be agricultural land or that it had lost the characte…

T. Suresh Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1047/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri. Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri. L. Bharath, CA
Section 143(3)Section 148

…uring the years from 1929 it was being used for agricultural purposes. The question of the land under consideration being wanted by a co-operative society or being surrounded by housing development was considered by this court in CIT v. Manilal Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917 and that factor of development coming up to the land in question was discounted by the court. In Manilal Somaath's case [1977] 106 ITR 917 (Guj.), this court also pointed out that though the land might have potential non- agricultural value, that factor did not mean that the land had ceased to be agricultural land or that it had lost the characte…

D. Dasappa, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1046/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri. Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri. L. Bharath, CA
Section 143(3)Section 148

…uring the years from 1929 it was being used for agricultural purposes. The question of the land under consideration being wanted by a co-operative society or being surrounded by housing development was considered by this court in CIT v. Manilal Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917 and that factor of development coming up to the land in question was discounted by the court. In Manilal Somaath's case [1977] 106 ITR 917 (Guj.), this court also pointed out that though the land might have potential non- agricultural value, that factor did not mean that the land had ceased to be agricultural land or that it had lost the characte…

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)

…ly as classified in the Revenue records, but also it was subjected to the payment of land revenue and that it was actually and ordinarily used for agricultural purpose at the relevant time. 7.11 We may also refer to the case of CIT v. Manilal Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917(Guj.), wherein the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed that the potential non- agricultural value of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 7.12 We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 I…

CIT v. Manilal Somnath (106 ITR 917) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax