CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy

32 ITR 466Supreme Court of India1957#774 most cited

What is CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy authority for?

Income is considered agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1), only if the land undergoes a measure of cultivation involving basic primary operations prior to germination and subsequent post-germination activities requiring human skill and labour.

132

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2003 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy · 32 ITR 466 · Section 10(1) · Section 2(1A) · agricultural income definition · agricultural operations · cultivation · primary operations · post-germination activities · income tax exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(1A)Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 2(1a)section 2(14)(iii)(a)section 115adsection 2(14)(iii)(b)section 2(14)(iii)section 2(1)section 63section 96section 60section 10(1)section 2(14)transfer of capital asset

Judgments citing CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy

Madhu Velayudhan, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA No.225 & 226/Hyd/2024 are allowed in part and ITA

ITA 225/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.225, 226 & 227/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…ssee is fitting into the term "Agricultural Income" defined in Sec.2(1A) of the I.T. Act. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy reported in 32 ITR 466 (SC) would apply to the facts of the case. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the decision of the Special Bench of the jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of CIT Vs Inventaa Chemical Industries Ltd. in ITA No.1015 to 1018/Hyd/15 vide order dated 9.7.2018 which is placed before him. 10. The l…

Vinodhini, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 921/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.921/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mrs. Vinodhini Acit बनाम/ Flat No.14, Door No.98, Central Circle-1(2) Harrington Road, Chetpet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 031. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmapv-2726-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-09-2024

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 153CSection 2(14)

…hat the manner in which the adjacent lands were used by the owner would not be a ground to come to a conclusion that the land was not agricultural in nature. The Hon’ble High Court, considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (32 ITR 466), held as under: - 9. The issue involved in the above Tax Case (Appeals) lies on the narrow compass, viz., whether the lands sold by the assessees are agricultural lands and whether they are entitled to the benefit of exemption from capital gains tax. 10. It is on record that in a report has been submitted by the revenue authorities, it is admitte…

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1646/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

…"agricultural land" for the purposes of earning an exemption under the Act. 70. He submits that while deciding the above case, the Honourable Supreme Court heavily relied on its earlier judgement in the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Saha reported in [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), wherein it was held that in the primary sense in which the term agriculture is 38 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 understood is agar-field and cultra-cultivation, i.e., the cultivation of the field. Subsequently, while upholding a decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT as…

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1625/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

…"agricultural land" for the purposes of earning an exemption under the Act. 70. He submits that while deciding the above case, the Honourable Supreme Court heavily relied on its earlier judgement in the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Saha reported in [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), wherein it was held that in the primary sense in which the term agriculture is 38 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 understood is agar-field and cultra-cultivation, i.e., the cultivation of the field. Subsequently, while upholding a decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT as…

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1624/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

…"agricultural land" for the purposes of earning an exemption under the Act. 70. He submits that while deciding the above case, the Honourable Supreme Court heavily relied on its earlier judgement in the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Saha reported in [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), wherein it was held that in the primary sense in which the term agriculture is 38 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 understood is agar-field and cultra-cultivation, i.e., the cultivation of the field. Subsequently, while upholding a decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT as…

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1623/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

…"agricultural land" for the purposes of earning an exemption under the Act. 70. He submits that while deciding the above case, the Honourable Supreme Court heavily relied on its earlier judgement in the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Saha reported in [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), wherein it was held that in the primary sense in which the term agriculture is 38 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 understood is agar-field and cultra-cultivation, i.e., the cultivation of the field. Subsequently, while upholding a decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT as…

ITO, International Taxation Ward1(2), Chennai vs. Rajamanickam Arulselvan, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 479/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.479/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & C.O. No. 44/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 479/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajamanickam Arulselvan, 65, Defence Officer Colony, 2Nd International Taxation Ward 1(2), Bsnl Building Tower-1, 4Th Floor, Avenue, 6Th Cross Street, Guindy, Greams Road, Thousand Light, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aappa2346C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, Dated 22.02.2023 Passed In Ita No. 10039/Cit(A)-16/2012-2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On The Facts, The Merits Of The Case & Provisions Of Law As Well & Hence Unsustainable. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Failing To Appreciate That When The Assessee Had Applied For Conversion Of The Vacant Land Into A Plotted

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 45(3)

…date of application filed by the assessee for conversion of land should be considered. The ld. DR, further referring to various judicial pronouncement including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466, submitted that the term agricultural land to mean that the said land should be used for cultivation by the owner of the land and in case the land is not used for agricultural purposes, even though said land is classified as agricultural land in revenue records, the same cannot be considered as agricultural land as per section 2(14) of the Act. Th…

Madan Mohan Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 795/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…ort of the claim of agricultural income. It was further held that the assessee has carried out primary and Shri Madan Mohan Mishra ITA no.795/Mum./2023 secondary operations as required by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC). Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 22,70,575, which has been claimed as exempt under section 10(1) of the Act. As per the assessee, it has…

Bayer Cropscience Ltd (Sucessor to Monsanto India Limited Mil), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2302/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…no.2302/Mum./2018 out various agricultural operations starting from cultivation onwards, which satisfies the conditions of having carried out the basic agricultural operations as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy, (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC). The learned CIT(A) also held that from the Seed Production Agreement, it is also evident that there is no contract to purchase seeds from the farmers and the ownership of the crop itself lies with the assessee. It is undisputed that the aforesaid order passed by the learned CIT(A) was not challenged further by the Revenue. 13. We further fi…

JCIT (OSD)- 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Bayer Cropscience Ltd (Sucessor to Monsanto India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2124/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…no.2302/Mum./2018 out various agricultural operations starting from cultivation onwards, which satisfies the conditions of having carried out the basic agricultural operations as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy, (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC). The learned CIT(A) also held that from the Seed Production Agreement, it is also evident that there is no contract to purchase seeds from the farmers and the ownership of the crop itself lies with the assessee. It is undisputed that the aforesaid order passed by the learned CIT(A) was not challenged further by the Revenue. 13. We further fi…

Bayer Cropscience Ltd (Sucessor to Monsanto India Limited Mil), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3763/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…no.2302/Mum./2018 out various agricultural operations starting from cultivation onwards, which satisfies the conditions of having carried out the basic agricultural operations as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy, (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC). The learned CIT(A) also held that from the Seed Production Agreement, it is also evident that there is no contract to purchase seeds from the farmers and the ownership of the crop itself lies with the assessee. It is undisputed that the aforesaid order passed by the learned CIT(A) was not challenged further by the Revenue. 13. We further fi…

Shri D. Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 8 (3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2223/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri. Bhagavath Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)

…ngal. The AO has also held that the appellant could-not produce the necessary proof for sale of produce etc. In this regard, reliance is also placed in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case of agricultural income, the appellant has to establish that primary, secondary and tertiary activities were carried on which is supported by necessary documentary evidence. However, in the case under consideration, the appellant has miserably failed to discharge the onus cast upon him to…

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)

…ltural land’ stands examined and explained by the Hon'ble Court in the context of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, it’s observations therein are equally applicable qua the Act; it, rather, making reference to the decision in CIT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), reproducing there-from (pg. 136), notes that the term ‘agricultural’ and ‘agricultural purpose’ are not defined under the Income Tax Act. The matter, it states, is principally factual, and there must be something to connect the holding of land with agricultural purpose that would bestow on it the character of an agricultural land. In the con…

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…admittedly, it is not so found by the Tribunal. The further question whether it will be agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1A) of the Act as elucidated by this Court 47 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT in CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy[1957] 32 ITR 466 does not arise for consideration. It is evident from the order of the High Court that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant stopped agricultural operation in November 1982 and the receipt under consideration did not relate to any agricultural operation carried on by the appellant, were not questioned before it. Though we do not…

Pandit Vettrivel, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3 (4), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 146/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.146/Chny/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Shri Pandit Vettrivel Acit बनाम B-272, Ground Floor, B-Block Central Circle-3(4) Rear Flat, Greater Kailash Part I, Chennai-34. / Vs. New Delhi-110 048. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajzpp-4861-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…classified as an agricultural land. However, nothing of that sort is available on record. 9. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case law of Shakuntala Vedachalam (369 ITR 558), considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (32 ITR 466), held as under: - 9. The issue involved in the above Tax Case (Appeals) lies on the narrow compass, viz., whether the lands sold by the assessees are agricultural lands and whether they are entitled to the benefit of exemption from capital gains tax. 10. It is on record that in a report has been submitted by the revenue authorities, it is admitte…

Ajay Bhargava HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A)For Respondent: Ms. MonishaChoudhary (Addl.CIT)

…nt of Seeds Fertilizers, Diesel and Electricity Expenses & other expenses. However, the appellant could not produce thesame. 7. In this regard, reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC) wherein, the Hon'ble Court held that the assessee ought to conduct the primary, secondary and tertiary activities with respect to the agricultural activities and such expenses are to be supported by necessary documentary evidence. However the case under consideration, the appellant is not having the requisite documentary evidence. 8. Although…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S British Agro Products (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

ITA 970/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 2

…e1/ company is manufacturing and non-agriculture in nature. 5.24 As far as the reliance on the various judgements of the appellant it is found that in the case of lnventaa (supra), the Ld ITAT has considered the cases of CITv. RajaBenoy Kumar Sahas Roy[1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC) and Chander Mohan vs. ITO in ITA No. 377 & 389 (Chd.) of 2012. For the sake of brevity the judgement is not reproduced again here. The judgement is appearing\above at Para 5.7 of the order. 5.25 The AO has also relied upon Smt. Manyam Meenakshamma Vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax reported in 63 ITR 534. I have gone through the decision. The ques…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S British Agro Products (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

ITA 969/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 2

…e1/ company is manufacturing and non-agriculture in nature. 5.24 As far as the reliance on the various judgements of the appellant it is found that in the case of lnventaa (supra), the Ld ITAT has considered the cases of CITv. RajaBenoy Kumar Sahas Roy[1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC) and Chander Mohan vs. ITO in ITA No. 377 & 389 (Chd.) of 2012. For the sake of brevity the judgement is not reproduced again here. The judgement is appearing\above at Para 5.7 of the order. 5.25 The AO has also relied upon Smt. Manyam Meenakshamma Vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax reported in 63 ITR 534. I have gone through the decision. The ques…

Jagdish Chandra Choudhary, Ajmer vs. ITO W-2(2) Ajmer, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 378/JPR/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147

…i) Income derived from building or land used for agricultural operation, in certain cases. [Section 2(1A)(c) Hon'ble Supreme Court had elaborately explained what constitute the term agriculture in depth in the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC). It is a landmark case for the understanding of agriculture under the Income Tax Act. It was an interesting case wherein assesse was growing tress on a forest land. Growing of trees was inter alia includes of cutting of trees and leaving the stumps to re-grow. The Supreme Court held such income as agriculture income and held as under:- ‘’The…

Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia. Legal Heir of Hasmukhlal Patadia., Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-!(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA No.125/CTK/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal heir of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 PAN No. :ADAPP 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Deepak Shah, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri…