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

Shirish M Dalvi, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4640/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

…he assessee were rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) by way of detail finding in para 3.3 of the impugned order. Shirish M. Dalvi 11.4 For determining, whether a land, is agricultural land or not, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar SahasRoay 32 ITR 466 (SC) held that agriculture would be restricted only to cultivation of the land in the strict sense of the term meaning thereby ‘tilling of land’, ‘sowing of the seeds’ , ‘planting’ and similar operations on the land which would require expenditure of human skill and labour upon the land . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi M Ibr…

DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shirish M Dalvi, Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4317/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

…he assessee were rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) by way of detail finding in para 3.3 of the impugned order. Shirish M. Dalvi 11.4 For determining, whether a land, is agricultural land or not, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar SahasRoay 32 ITR 466 (SC) held that agriculture would be restricted only to cultivation of the land in the strict sense of the term meaning thereby ‘tilling of land’, ‘sowing of the seeds’ , ‘planting’ and similar operations on the land which would require expenditure of human skill and labour upon the land . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi M Ibr…

ACIT-Central Circle -1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Aarti International Ltd., Ludhiana

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 102/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Cit(A)?

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)Section 250(6)

…TR 727, Indian Tube Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. - (1993) 203 ITR 54, Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.C. Joshi & B.C. Joshi - (1993) 202 ITR 1017 and Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy - (1957) 32 ITR 466). Therefore, so far as the present case is concerned, it cannot be said that the issue was a debatable one. 12 . In view of the above submissions, in our considered view the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and also the order of the Gujarat High Court impugned herein cannot sustain and are set aside as they have…

Noshir Darabshaw Talati, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1516/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250Section 45

…es (a) and (b) of clause (iii) of section 2(14) of the Act and as such the land in question is an agricultural land not liable to capital gain tax. 5. The CIT(A) has wrongly relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar's case (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC) and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the for the land to be agricultural, agricultural activity should have been carried out on it. 6. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the said decision relied upon is given under the old Act i.e. Income Tax definition of capital asset but only the land, the income derived from which wa…

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

…nd it was not the assessee who had paid conversion charges and penalty for failure for using the land for certified purpose. He again invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 33 ITR 466. 23. He further submitted that in the case of Prasanna Gowda, one of the assessee's before us, the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) has decided the issue in assessee's favour on facts and particularly assessee's representative relied on the decision at page 5 para 4 of his order. In this case, according to the Commissioner of Income-tax(A), the Asses…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S. R.J. Biotech Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 2103/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)

…aking agricultural produce marketable. The issue of agriculture, agricultural operations, basic operations, subsequent operations for agricultural purposes, income, etc. came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Suhas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held the primary significance of agriculture is that of cultivation of land, the process of agriculture and products raised upon the land, meaning thereby, the cultivation of land includes the tilling of land, sowing of seeds and planting are the basic operations and after the produce sprout from the A.Y. 2013-14 &…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S. R.J. Biotech Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 2102/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)

…aking agricultural produce marketable. The issue of agriculture, agricultural operations, basic operations, subsequent operations for agricultural purposes, income, etc. came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Suhas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held the primary significance of agriculture is that of cultivation of land, the process of agriculture and products raised upon the land, meaning thereby, the cultivation of land includes the tilling of land, sowing of seeds and planting are the basic operations and after the produce sprout from the A.Y. 2013-14 &…

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

…nd it was not the assessee who had paid conversion charges and penalty for failure for using the land for certified purpose. He again invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 33 ITR 466. 23. He further submitted that in the case of Prasanna Gowda, one of the assessee's before us, the Commissioner of Income- tax(A) has decided the issue in assessee's favour on facts and particularly assessee's representative relied on the decision at page 5 para 4 of his order. In this case, according to the Commissioner of Income-tax(A), the Asse…

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

…nd it was not the assessee who had paid conversion charges and penalty for failure for using the land for certified purpose. He again invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 33 ITR 466. 23. He further submitted that in the case of Prasanna Gowda, one of the assessee's before us, the Commissioner of Income- tax(A) has decided the issue in assessee's favour on facts and particularly assessee's representative relied on the decision at page 5 para 4 of his order. In this case, according to the Commissioner of Income-tax(A), the Asse…

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)

…ersion charges and penalty for ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 59 of 79 failure for using the land for certified purpose. He again invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 33 ITR 466. 23. He further submitted that in the case of Prasanna Gowda, one of the assessee's before us, the Commissioner of Income- tax(A) has decided the issue in assessee's favour on facts and particularly assessee's representative relied on the decision at page 5 para 4 of his order. In this case, according to the Commissioner of Income-tax(A), the Asse…

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)

…ersion charges and penalty for ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 59 of 79 failure for using the land for certified purpose. He again invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 33 ITR 466. 23. He further submitted that in the case of Prasanna Gowda, one of the assessee's before us, the Commissioner of Income- tax(A) has decided the issue in assessee's favour on facts and particularly assessee's representative relied on the decision at page 5 para 4 of his order. In this case, according to the Commissioner of Income-tax(A), the Asse…

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)

…ersion charges and penalty for ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 59 of 79 failure for using the land for certified purpose. He again invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 33 ITR 466. 23. He further submitted that in the case of Prasanna Gowda, one of the assessee's before us, the Commissioner of Income- tax(A) has decided the issue in assessee's favour on facts and particularly assessee's representative relied on the decision at page 5 para 4 of his order. In this case, according to the Commissioner of Income-tax(A), the Asse…

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)

…ersion charges and penalty for ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 59 of 79 failure for using the land for certified purpose. He again invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 33 ITR 466. 23. He further submitted that in the case of Prasanna Gowda, one of the assessee's before us, the Commissioner of Income- tax(A) has decided the issue in assessee's favour on facts and particularly assessee's representative relied on the decision at page 5 para 4 of his order. In this case, according to the Commissioner of Income-tax(A), the Asse…

Shaileshbhai Kalabhai Chaudhary, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 581/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shaurya S. Shukla, Sr.D.R

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. Asset. Appeal(s) by No(s) Year(s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. No.581/Ahd/2019 2014-15 Shaileshbhai Kalabhai Income Tax Chaudhary, officer, Matapura, Ward-4, Chhala, Gandhinagar. Dist. Gandhinagar. PAN: APKPC9240B 2. No.2018/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Babubhai Motibhai Income Tax Chaudhary, officer, 1578, At Matapura, Ward-1, Chhala, Gandhinagar. Dist. Gandhi…

Kantaben Govabhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2020/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shaurya S. Shukla, Sr.D.R

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. Asset. Appeal(s) by No(s) Year(s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. No.581/Ahd/2019 2014-15 Shaileshbhai Kalabhai Income Tax Chaudhary, officer, Matapura, Ward-4, Chhala, Gandhinagar. Dist. Gandhinagar. PAN: APKPC9240B 2. No.2018/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Babubhai Motibhai Income Tax Chaudhary, officer, 1578, At Matapura, Ward-1, Chhala, Gandhinagar. Dist. Gandhi…

Somabhai Motibhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2019/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shaurya S. Shukla, Sr.D.R

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. Asset. Appeal(s) by No(s) Year(s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. No.581/Ahd/2019 2014-15 Shaileshbhai Kalabhai Income Tax Chaudhary, officer, Matapura, Ward-4, Chhala, Gandhinagar. Dist. Gandhinagar. PAN: APKPC9240B 2. No.2018/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Babubhai Motibhai Income Tax Chaudhary, officer, 1578, At Matapura, Ward-1, Chhala, Gandhinagar. Dist. Gandhi…

Babubhai Motibhai Chaudhary, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2018/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shaurya S. Shukla, Sr.D.R

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. Asset. Appeal(s) by No(s) Year(s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. No.581/Ahd/2019 2014-15 Shaileshbhai Kalabhai Income Tax Chaudhary, officer, Matapura, Ward-4, Chhala, Gandhinagar. Dist. Gandhinagar. PAN: APKPC9240B 2. No.2018/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Babubhai Motibhai Income Tax Chaudhary, officer, 1578, At Matapura, Ward-1, Chhala, Gandhinagar. Dist. Gandhi…

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)

…nd it was not the assessee who had paid conversion charges and penalty for failure for using the land for certified purpose. He again invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 33 ITR 466. 23. He further submitted that in the case of Prasanna Gowda, one of the assessee's before us, the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) has decided the issue in assessee's favour on facts and particularly assessee's representative relied on the decision at page 5 para 4 of his order. In this case, according to the Commissioner of Income- tax(A), the Asse…

Chhaya Vilas Dengle vs. Income-Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2462/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 139Section 45Section 45mSection 54BSection 55

…s were issued from the Govt. authority and they were attested by the concerned Talathi of the village where the land was situated. The assessee further relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC) wherein it was observed as follows: “8.1 In considering the connotation of the term agriculture” we have so far thought of cultivation of land in the wider sense as comprising within its scope the basic as well as the subsequent operations described above, regardless of the nature of the products raised on the land. These products may be gra…

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)

…s, which according to the Ld. CIT(A) grows naturally on the soil and thus the assessee had not carried out cultivation on the said land. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC) to emphasize as what constitute the term “agriculture”. According to him, the assessee did not carry out the basic operations of tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds, planting and similar operations on the land, which was required for cultivating of the land. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the grass i.e. main crop raised on the land, grows natu…