How many judgments cite CIT v. Murali Lodge?

24 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Murali Lodge (211 ITR 897), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Murali Lodge come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 2(14).

CIT v. Murali Lodge

211 ITR 897High Court1995#4932 most cited

What is CIT v. Murali Lodge authority for?

The intention of the purchaser to use land is not relevant to determine if it was agricultural land on the date of sale. Agricultural land is not a capital asset if it is not located within the limits of a municipality or cantonment board, but a panchayat is not considered a municipality for this purpose.

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 Murali Lodge · section 2(14) · agricultural income · capital asset · municipality · panchayat · land use · long term capital gain · 211 ITR 897

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)section 2(14)put to use agricultural income long term capital gain company business

Judgments citing CIT v. Murali Lodge

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)

…s, the Madras High Court found that the land is 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 operation…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

ITTA/298/2015HC Telangana05 Nov 2015

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

The Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd

ITTA/175/2015HC Telangana08 Oct 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

ITTA/176/2015HC Telangana08 Oct 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH