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

Smt. Nima Somabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1301/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1301/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2012 Smt. Nima Somabhai Patel, Income-Tax Officer, 13, Shubhash Society, Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), B/H. Ishwar Bhuvan, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Acmpp1832B

For Appellant: Shri Karan Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms Pooja Parekh, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

…y the judicial precedents of Hon'ble High Courts and Supreme Court are to be taken into consideration. The meaning of the expression "agricultural land" was considered first time by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Raja Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466. The constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the meaning of the expression "agricultural land" which was again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631/70 Taxman 301 as under :— 'On an appeal, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that: Inasmuch as agricultural…

Sulzer Pumps India Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Shri S. SriramFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, Shri Sushil Kr
Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 92CSection 95D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sulzer Pumps India Limited, Deputy Commissioner of Income 9, MIDC, Digha, Thane Belapur Vs. Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Road, Navi Mumbai-400708. Room No. 473, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACK 2238 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri V. Sridharan, Shri S. Sriram, Shri Narendra Dave Revenue by : Shri A. Mohan, Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra Date of Hearing : 28/01/20…

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

…submission filed before the Tribunal, the learned AR has more or less reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. It was stated by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy reported in 32 ITR 466 (SC), for cultivation of land does not comprise merely of raising the products of the land in the narrower sense of the term like tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds, planting, and similar work done on the land but also includes the subsequent operations for raising the plant. It was submitted that primary and subsequent activities form one i…

M/S Veekay Connectors Private Limited, Allahabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 144/ALLD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad18 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Veekay Connectors Pvt. V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., H-12, Upsidc Industrial Allahabad Area, Naini, Allahabad Pan-Aabcv0585H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. S. Khanduja, Ca Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2020

For Appellant: Mr. S. Khanduja, CAFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 234B

…- under the head income from other sources which the appellant derived from sale of trees planted during 1991 to 1997 and treated as agricultural income following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC.) in which conditions laid down have been fulfilled for treating income derived from planted sale of trees as agricultural income. 2. BECAUSE irrespective of the quantum of assessment and the dispute raised it is contended that interest under section 234B is not leviable. M/s Veekay Connectors Pvt. Ltd. 3. BECAUSE order of the learned ACIT is…

Chandra Prakash Jaiswal, Allahabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 142/ALLD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad18 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Veekay Connectors Pvt. V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., H-12, Upsidc Industrial Allahabad Area, Naini, Allahabad Pan-Aabcv0585H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. S. Khanduja, Ca Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2020

For Appellant: Mr. S. Khanduja, CAFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 234B

…- under the head income from other sources which the appellant derived from sale of trees planted during 1991 to 1997 and treated as agricultural income following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC.) in which conditions laid down have been fulfilled for treating income derived from planted sale of trees as agricultural income. 2. BECAUSE irrespective of the quantum of assessment and the dispute raised it is contended that interest under section 234B is not leviable. M/s Veekay Connectors Pvt. Ltd. 3. BECAUSE order of the learned ACIT is…

Mr. Jairam G. Kimmane, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2026/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(14)

…e Income Tax Act has the answer to such a plea raised. Further more, it is also on record that the lands are agricultural lands classified as dry lands, for which kist has been paid. 19. The view of the assessee is fortified by the decision reported in (1937) 32 ITR 466 (Commissioner of Income-tax V. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy), wherein, it is held as follows: "There was authority for the proposition that the expression "agricultural land" mentioned in Entry 21 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, should be interpreted in its wider significance as including lands which are used…

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

…ural purposes. In the case of assessee, it is evident that the land was either used for research and development or kept vacant but not used for agricultural purposes. The Honourable apex court in the case CAT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] reported in 32 ITR 466 (SC) has held that unless there is some measure of cultivation of land and some skilled labour is performed on the land for cultivation, the land cannot be said to have been used for agricultural purposes. It is essential that basic primary operation, prior to germination of the produce, involving expenditure of human skill and labour on the land…

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

…ural purposes. In the case of assessee, it is evident that the land was either used for research and development or kept vacant but not used for agricultural purposes. The Honourable apex court in the case CAT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] reported in 32 ITR 466 (SC) has held that unless there is some measure of cultivation of land and some skilled labour is performed on the land for cultivation, the land cannot be said to have been used for agricultural purposes. It is essential that basic primary operation, prior to germination of the produce, involving expenditure of human skill and labour on the land…

Ramnath and Co vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-002506-002509 - 2020Supreme Court05 Jun 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 80

…the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth- Tax, Andhra Pradesh v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigah: (1976) 105 ITR 133 as follows (at p.137 of ITR) : “8 . It is true that in Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy's case: [1957] 32 ITR 466(SC) this court pointed out that meanings of words used in Acts of Parliament are not necessarily to be gathered from dictionaries which are not authorities on what Parliament must have meant. Nevertheless, it was also indicated there that where there is nothing better to rely upon, dictionaries may be used as an aid to resolve an ambiguity.…

M/S K R Construction, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Central-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7615/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathak.R.Construction Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Basement, Hinal Residency Income Tax-Central-3 19Th Floor Datta Mandir Road Dahanukar Wadi Air India Building Kandivali(W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…& loss of agricultural income and admittedly It is not so round by the Tribunal. The further question whether it will tie agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1A) of the Act as elucidated by this court in CIT v Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy 11957] 32 ITR 466, does not arise for consideration. it is evident from The order of the High Court that that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant stopped agricultural operation in November. 1982, and this receipt under consideration did not relate lo any agricultural operation carried on by The appellant, were not questioned before it. Though w…

Mala Dhingra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 4728/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimala Dhingra, Acit, 85 – Golf Links, Vs. Central Circle – 8, New Delhi – 110 003. New Delhi. Pan : Aadpd6808Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishore, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas [CIT]–DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…se' was not defined in the Income Tax Act and that we must necessarily fall back upon the general sense in which they have been understood in common parlance. What constitutes agriculture has long since been settled in CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC) and in CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of wards) [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC). The term 'agriculture' is understood as comprising within its scope the basic as well as subsequent operations in the process of agriculture and the raising on the lands of products which have some utility either for consumption for trade and commerce, it will be seen t…

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

…ty had none of the ingredients of basic operations integral to agriculture. (iv) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in failing to appreciate and correctly apply the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, 32 ITR 466, wherein carrying on of basic operations by expanding human skill and labour on land had been held as an essential prerequisite of agriculture and, as per the said ratio the assessee's activity would not amount to agriculture at all. (v) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in failing to appreciate that the green house itself does not constitute land/eart…

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

…ty had none of the ingredients of basic operations integral to agriculture. (iv) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in failing to appreciate and correctly apply the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, 32 ITR 466, wherein carrying on of basic operations by expanding human skill and labour on land had been held as an essential prerequisite of agriculture and, as per the said ratio the assessee's activity would not amount to agriculture at all. (v) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in failing to appreciate that the green house itself does not constitute land/eart…

Petrofarms Limited, South 24 Parganas vs. ITO, Ward - 8(3), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 340/KOL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 340/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Petrofarms Limited Vs. I.T.O Ward 8(3), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Pan: Aabcp 5729K (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Sanjay Dixit, Cfa, Ld.Ar For The Respondent : Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Ld.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Dixit, CFA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143(3)

…ural income, even if, assessee has incurred expenditure on its maintenance. In the case of appellant's case, there is no evidence of any expenditure on maintenance of agricultural products. The Apex Court, in the case of CIT vs. Raja Binoy Kumar Sahar Roy(SC) 32 ITR 466 has held that only income from basic operation of cultivating land and requiring the expenditure of human skill and labour on land is agricultural income. In the case of the appellant, there seems to be no expenditure incurred on human skill or on the basic operation of land cultivation. My conclusion further gets strengthen by adjudication of Hon…

Vikas Globalone Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2498/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Piyush KamalFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 37Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2498/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2012-2013 M/s. Vikas Globalone Ltd., (Now known as M/s. The DCIT, Vikas Ecotech Ltd.,) F-6, vs. Circle-26(2), Vikas House, 34/1, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. PIN 110026.PAN AAACV0608G (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Gautam Jain, And For Assessee : Shri Piyush Kamal, Advocates For Revenue : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 31.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appea…

ITO, W-4, Panchkula vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi, Panchkula

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

For Appellant: Shri. A.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore, CI TDR
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…. 61,13,24,357/- which was added back to the taxable income of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws : • Rasiklal Chimanlal Nagri Vs. CIT, 56 ITR 608 • Raja Mustafa Ali Khan Vs. CIT, 16 ITR 330 • CIT Vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Suhas Roy, 32 ITR 466 (SC) • State of UP Vs. Nand Kumar Aggarwal, AIR 1998 SC 473, 476 • Vallabdas Narainji Vs. Development Officer, AIR 1929 PC 163 • Tea Estates India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax • CIT Vs. Gemini Pictures, 220 ITR 43 • Sarifabibi’s Case [ 1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC) • CWT Vs. Officer-in Charge (Court of Wards), Paigah [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC…

Mittal Plantations, Jeypore vs. ITO, Jeypore Ward, Jeypore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 293/CTK/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Feb 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 147

…hat the assessee was, in fact, engaged in agricultural activity and that too after finding the existence of the plantation during the field visit. With regard to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raja Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy, [1957] 32 ITR 466, as relied upon by the AO, ld. AR submitted that this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the case of the assessee. Ld. AR drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which read as under :- “We have, therefore, to consider when it can be said that the land is used for ag…

Mittal Plantations, Jeypore vs. ITO, Jeypore Ward, Jeypore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 511/CTK/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Feb 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 147

…hat the assessee was, in fact, engaged in agricultural activity and that too after finding the existence of the plantation during the field visit. With regard to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raja Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy, [1957] 32 ITR 466, as relied upon by the AO, ld. AR submitted that this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the case of the assessee. Ld. AR drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which read as under :- “We have, therefore, to consider when it can be said that the land is used for ag…

Pravardhan Seeds Priavate Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 667/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Years: 2012-13 Pravardhan Seeds Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaafcp0118A

For Appellant: Shri C.S. SubramanyamFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…`IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2012-13 Pravardhan Seeds Pvt. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. PAN – AAAAFCP0118A Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri C.S. Subramanyam Revenue by: Shri YVST Sai Date of hearing: 20/11/2018 Date of pronouncement: 30/01/2019 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT – 4, Hyderabad, dated, 24/03/2017 for AY 2012- 13, passed…

Income Tax Officer, Alwar vs. M/S Krish Home Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we set aside the order of the ld

ITA 390/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rawat (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 2(14)(iii)

…process of evaluation. The inference has to be drawn on a cumulative consideration of all the relevant facts. The first decision of this Court which considered the meaning of the expression 'agricultural land' is in CIT v . Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466. But the question there was whether the income from forest land derived from sal and piyasal trees, 'not grown by human skill and labour' constitutes agricultural income? The decision that directly considered the issue, though under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 is in CWT v. Officer-in-charge ( Court of Wards) [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC) (hereinafter refer…