CIT v. Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

341 ITR 342High Court2012#3623 most cited

What is CIT v. Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Agricultural income exemption is denied when no lease of land is created, as leasing might be prohibited under relevant land reform acts.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. · agricultural income · exemption · lease of land · Karnataka Land Reforms Act · 341 ITR 342

Also reported as

16 Taxmann.com 83

Sections most often in play

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2(1A)Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 43BSection 68

Issues it is cited on

section 2(1a)section 79section 2(1)section 10(1)section 2(15a)section 17(2)(iiia)section 80lsection 17(2)section 10(35)captive service providersection 260aagricultural income

Judgments citing CIT v. Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Namdhari Seeds Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 10(1)

…tegorical observation by Hon’ble High Court in order dated 24.10.2011 is in para 58 at page 185 of paper book for A.Y. 2005-06. 10. The said Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1998-99 to 2004-05 has been reported in (2012) 341 ITR 342 had held that contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of revenue generated from contract farming. For the sake of convenience we reproduce para 58 of the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards:…

M/S Namdhari Seeds, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2247/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 10(1)

…tegorical observation by Hon’ble High Court in order dated 24.10.2011 is in para 58 at page 185 of paper book for A.Y. 2005-06. 10. The said Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1998-99 to 2004-05 has been reported in (2012) 341 ITR 342 had held that contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of revenue generated from contract farming. For the sake of convenience we reproduce para 58 of the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards:…

Namdhari Seeds Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2246/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 10(1)

…tegorical observation by Hon’ble High Court in order dated 24.10.2011 is in para 58 at page 185 of paper book for A.Y. 2005-06. 10. The said Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1998-99 to 2004-05 has been reported in (2012) 341 ITR 342 had held that contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of revenue generated from contract farming. For the sake of convenience we reproduce para 58 of the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards:…

M/S Namdhari Seeds Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 830/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10(1)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234D

…7 of 12 ITA No.830 & 831/Bang/2018 business income. Categorical observation by Hon’ble High Court is in para 58 at page 280 of paper book.” 2.2 The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1998-99 to 2004-05 reported in (2012) 341 ITR 342 had held that contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) of the Act in respect of revenue generated from contract farming. For the sake of convenience we reproduce para 58 of the order passed by orderable Karnataka High Court in this regards:…

M/S. Jayanti Botanical Gardens, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 36/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Varun S., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 10(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 2

…rown in assessee’s nursery alone can 4 M/s.Jayanti Botanical Gardens. be termed as agricultural income. The CIT(A) by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT, Central v. Namdhari Seeds (P) Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 342 concluded that the A.O. is justified in treating 50% of the exempted income as income from business or profession. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed a paper book comprising of 256 pages enclosing therein the submissions, the judicial pronouncements relied on,…

Nusun Genetic Research Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 701/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 700 & 701/HYD/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s.Nusun Genetic Research DCIT, Circle-16(1), Limited, Vs HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: AABCN5864F] (Assessee/Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 06/HYD/2019 (in ITA No.700/Hyd/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s.Nusun Genetic Research DCIT, Circle-16(1), Vs Limited, HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: AABCN5864F] (Cross-Objector/Respondent) (Assessee/Appellant) For Assessee : Shri P.Murali M…

Nusun Genetic Research Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 700/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 700 & 701/HYD/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s.Nusun Genetic Research DCIT, Circle-16(1), Limited, Vs HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: AABCN5864F] (Assessee/Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 06/HYD/2019 (in ITA No.700/Hyd/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s.Nusun Genetic Research DCIT, Circle-16(1), Vs Limited, HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: AABCN5864F] (Cross-Objector/Respondent) (Assessee/Appellant) For Assessee : Shri P.Murali M…

K.Sri Varshitha, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2082/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2015-16 K. Vinuthna Reddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-6(4), Pan: Bmzpk 6915 Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 K. Sri Varshitha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-6(4), Pan: Bngpk 5701 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Ms. Sri Varshitha Kondamadugula & Smt. Vinuthna Reddy Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-6, Hyderabad In Appeal No. 10279 & 10278/2017- 18/B2/Cit(A)-6, Both Dated 20/07/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) Of The Act For The Ay 2015-16. Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Related To The Same Issue, They Are Taken Up For Hearing Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 2

…at agricultural activities were not carried out on the land leased to the company, reliance was placed in the following decisions: - a. Proagro seeds vs. JCIT [2003] reported in 126 Taxman 37 (Delhi Trib) b. ITO vs. Namdhari seeds Pvt. Ltd. [2012] reported in 341 ITR 342 (Kar HC) c. K.Lakshmanan and Co vs. CIT [1999] reported in 239 ITR 597 (SC) d. CIT vs. Stanes amalgamated estates Ltd. [1998] reported in 232 ITR 443 (MAD HC) 6. With the above observation, the Ld. CIT (A) concluded that the amount received by both the assessee from the company in the form of lease rent will not fall under the definition of agric…

K. Vinuthna Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2081/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2015-16 K. Vinuthna Reddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-6(4), Pan: Bmzpk 6915 Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 K. Sri Varshitha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-6(4), Pan: Bngpk 5701 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Ms. Sri Varshitha Kondamadugula & Smt. Vinuthna Reddy Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-6, Hyderabad In Appeal No. 10279 & 10278/2017- 18/B2/Cit(A)-6, Both Dated 20/07/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) Of The Act For The Ay 2015-16. Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Related To The Same Issue, They Are Taken Up For Hearing Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 2

…at agricultural activities were not carried out on the land leased to the company, reliance was placed in the following decisions: - a. Proagro seeds vs. JCIT [2003] reported in 126 Taxman 37 (Delhi Trib) b. ITO vs. Namdhari seeds Pvt. Ltd. [2012] reported in 341 ITR 342 (Kar HC) c. K.Lakshmanan and Co vs. CIT [1999] reported in 239 ITR 597 (SC) d. CIT vs. Stanes amalgamated estates Ltd. [1998] reported in 232 ITR 443 (MAD HC) 6. With the above observation, the Ld. CIT (A) concluded that the amount received by both the assessee from the company in the form of lease rent will not fall under the definition of agric…

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Genuine Seeds Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 793/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2754/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(2), Pune …. Vs. Genuine Seeds Pvt. Ltd., A-3, Sheetal Apartments, Dp Road, Aundh, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411007 Pan: Aadcg0085F

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj GargFor Respondent: Shri M.R. Shirude
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

…own. The question which was before the Hon’ble High Court was whether growing of such seeds does not amount to agricultural activity. The Revenue has in turn, relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT Vs. Namdhari Seeds (P.) Ltd. (2011) 341 ITR 342 (Kar). The Hon’ble High Court held that the basic premise on which assessee’s case was based had no relation whatsoever with the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT Vs. Namdhari Seeds (P.) Ltd. (supra). Then, 7 addressing the issue whether growing of breeder and foundation seeds would amount to agriculture, it was held that th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Genuine Seeds Pvt.Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2754/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2754/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(2), Pune …. Vs. Genuine Seeds Pvt. Ltd., A-3, Sheetal Apartments, Dp Road, Aundh, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411007 Pan: Aadcg0085F

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj GargFor Respondent: Shri M.R. Shirude
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

…own. The question which was before the Hon’ble High Court was whether growing of such seeds does not amount to agricultural activity. The Revenue has in turn, relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT Vs. Namdhari Seeds (P.) Ltd. (2011) 341 ITR 342 (Kar). The Hon’ble High Court held that the basic premise on which assessee’s case was based had no relation whatsoever with the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT Vs. Namdhari Seeds (P.) Ltd. (supra). Then, 7 addressing the issue whether growing of breeder and foundation seeds would amount to agriculture, it was held that th…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Aurangabad vs. M/S. Nath Bio-Genes (I) Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1505/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 642/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal & Shri Vijay SabuFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10(1)Section 133(6)

…2 to 2014-15 as per the provisions of section 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, AO treated the same as invalid document. For this, AO relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 342. Further, referring to 7/12 documents and considering the fact that assessee is named as lessee of the land on those land records of Revenue Department, AO held that the growers are the owners of the seeds and consequently, the seeds grown in the said land would belong to the land owner. Therefore, the assessee stands purchased the said hybrid…

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Nath Bio-Geners (I) Ltd., Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 642/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 642/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal & Shri Vijay SabuFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10(1)Section 133(6)

…2 to 2014-15 as per the provisions of section 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, AO treated the same as invalid document. For this, AO relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 342. Further, referring to 7/12 documents and considering the fact that assessee is named as lessee of the land on those land records of Revenue Department, AO held that the growers are the owners of the seeds and consequently, the seeds grown in the said land would belong to the land owner. Therefore, the assessee stands purchased the said hybrid…