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

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)

…production of seeds. AO held that most of the seeds procured are from the lands not owned by the assessee. Further, AO rejected the arguments of the assessee and considered the following decisions relied upon by the assessee : i. Raja Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy 32 ITR 460 ii. CIT Vs. Soundarya Nursery (2000) 241 ITR 530 iii. Monsanto India Limited Vs. DCIT – ITA No.6093/Mum/2007 Eventually, AO taxed the entire claim of Agricultural income in all these assessment years under consideration. 7. During the subsequent assessment years, AO proceeded to invoke the provisions of section 133(6) of the Act in few select c…

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)

…production of seeds. AO held that most of the seeds procured are from the lands not owned by the assessee. Further, AO rejected the arguments of the assessee and considered the following decisions relied upon by the assessee : i. Raja Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy 32 ITR 460 ii. CIT Vs. Soundarya Nursery (2000) 241 ITR 530 iii. Monsanto India Limited Vs. DCIT – ITA No.6093/Mum/2007 Eventually, AO taxed the entire claim of Agricultural income in all these assessment years under consideration. 7. During the subsequent assessment years, AO proceeded to invoke the provisions of section 133(6) of the Act in few select c…

ITO Corporate Ward 2, Coimbatore vs. Shri. T S R Khannaiyan, Coimbatore

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

ITA 812/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 10(38)Section 2

…such a plea raised. Furthermore, 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 CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1937] 32 ITR 466 (SC) wherein, it is held as follows (page 476) : "There was authority for the proposition that the expression 'agri cultural 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 or are capable of being used for raising…

T.S.R.Khannaiyann, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 257/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 10(38)Section 2

…such a plea raised. Furthermore, 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 CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1937] 32 ITR 466 (SC) wherein, it is held as follows (page 476) : "There was authority for the proposition that the expression 'agri cultural 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 or are capable of being used for raising…

T.S.R.Khannaiyann, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 256/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 10(38)Section 2

…such a plea raised. Furthermore, 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 CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1937] 32 ITR 466 (SC) wherein, it is held as follows (page 476) : "There was authority for the proposition that the expression 'agri cultural 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 or are capable of being used for raising…

Madhu Ramesh Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6638/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Ram Lal Negishri Madhu Ramesh Jain Income Tax Officer-17(2)(3) 4Th Floor, Eros Theatre Bldg. Room No. 123-B/G, 1St Floor Vs. J.T. Road, Churchgate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaipj1389H Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri K. Gopal & Shri Tanmay Phadke Respondent By: Ms. Hemalatha Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.09.2018 O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, Am This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-28, Mumbai Dated 24.08.2017 For A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. In This Appeal Assessee Is Aggrieved For Assessing Agricultural Income Of Rs.41,43,463/- As Income From Other Sources. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Previous Year Relevant To Impugned Assessment Year 2013-14 On 29.09.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,03,873/-. The Assessee Filed Her Revised Computation Of Income Vide Letter Dated 13.07.2015 Declaring Total

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…the definition of “agriculture income" as per section 2(1A) of the Act. Thus, the said income is exempt from tax under Section 10(1) of the Act. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC) wherein it was held that: "If the integrated activity of the agriculturist, viz; agriculture, which includes the basic operations and the subsequent operations is undertaken and performed in regard to any land, that land can be said to have been used for agricultural purpose and the income derived there from can be said to be agricultural inc…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Phi Seeds (P) Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 4366/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…income from sale of hybrid seeds is agriculture income and hence eligible for exemption under section 10(1) of the Act was based on facts, statutory provisions and the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Courts including that of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy ( 32 ITR 460)(SC). 5.3 The Ld. Senior Counsel further submitted that in the case of Namdhari Seeds P. Ltd ITA No. 75/2007 passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and relied upon by the revenue in quantum proceedings, leasing of the land was prohibited under the Karnataka land reforms Act and therefore income from such land has been held as not agriculture inco…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6645/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2006-07
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…income from sale of hybrid seeds is agriculture income and hence eligible for exemption under section 10(1) of the Act was based on facts, statutory provisions and the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Courts including that of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy ( 32 ITR 460)(SC). 5.3 The Ld. Senior Counsel further submitted that in the case of Namdhari Seeds P. Ltd ITA No. 75/2007 passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and relied upon by the revenue in quantum proceedings, leasing of the land was prohibited under the Karnataka land reforms Act and therefore income from such land has been held as not agriculture inco…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6622/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2004-05
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…income from sale of hybrid seeds is agriculture income and hence eligible for exemption under section 10(1) of the Act was based on facts, statutory provisions and the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Courts including that of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy ( 32 ITR 460)(SC). 5.3 The Ld. Senior Counsel further submitted that in the case of Namdhari Seeds P. Ltd ITA No. 75/2007 passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and relied upon by the revenue in quantum proceedings, leasing of the land was prohibited under the Karnataka land reforms Act and therefore income from such land has been held as not agriculture inco…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Futura Bioplants Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1271/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1271/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Vora & Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 10(1)Section 2

…bjects of the company as per Memorandum of Association, applicability of Explanation 3 to section 2(1A) of the Act, Budget Speech of the Hon’ble Finance Minister etc. Assessee also relied on the following judicial precedents : 1. Raja Benoy Sahas Roy (1957) (32 ITR 466) 2. K.F. Bioplants – ITA No.146/PN/2009 dated 26-03- 3. Best Roses Biotech (P) Ltd (2012) (144 TTJ 645) (Ahd) 4. CIT Vs. Soundarya Nursery (2000) 241 ITR 530 (Mad) 5. CIT vs. Rana Gurjit Singh (2011) 340 ITR 108 (P&H HC) 6. Puransingh M. Verma vs. CIT (2014) 230 Taxman 470 (Guj HC) 7. ITO Vs. Dr. Seemantini S. Pathare (ITA No. 263/PN/2011) dat…

M/S. Phi Seeds Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 4269/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – II, New Delhi. New Delhi PAN : AABCS 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – II, New Delhi. P…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds (P) Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2223/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – II, New Delhi. New Delhi PAN : AABCS 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – II, New Delhi. P…

M/S. Phi Seeds Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1903/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – II, New Delhi. New Delhi PAN : AABCS 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – II, New Delhi. P…

M/S Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3670/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – II, New Delhi. New Delhi PAN : AABCS 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – II, New Delhi. P…

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 5285/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – II, New Delhi. New Delhi PAN : AABCS 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – II, New Delhi. P…

Phi Seeds Ltd vs. ACIT Coy Circle 14 (1)

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 4383/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – II, New Delhi. New Delhi PAN : AABCS 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – II, New Delhi. P…

Phi Seeds Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1)

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1988/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – II, New Delhi. New Delhi PAN : AABCS 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – II, New Delhi. P…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pioneer Overseas Corporation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 6915/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 6915/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Pioneer Overseas Tax, Circle-2(2)(2), Corporation, B-4, Greater Kailash New Delhi Enclave, Part-Ii, New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp6547N Assessee By : Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. & Sh. Rohan Khare, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. M. Shiv Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 20.10.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxix, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. M. Shiv Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…f parent seeds was agricultural income and hence was eligible for exemption u/s 10(1) r.w.s. 2(1A) of the Act was based on facts, statutory provisions and the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including that of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy reported at 32 ITR 460. It was contended that there was no concealment of the said fact from the tax authorities as the amount of income claimed to be exempt had been specifically mentioned in the return of income and merely because the claim was disallowed, it did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was further stat…

Suguna Nagesh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3585/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 263

…heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the principles of res-judicata do not apply to the income-tax proceedings. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be upheld. He relied on the decisions reported in 32 ITR 466, 155 ITR 121 and 188 ITR 44. 10. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of agricultural income on the g…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Eservglobal Sa, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 557/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Advs
Section 9

…decisions: • Geoffrey Manners vs. CIT reported in 2 to 1 ITR 695 • graphite versus CIT reported in 188 ITR 146 • Jyotikana vs. CIT reported in 26 ITR 424 • Benoykumar vs. CIT reported in 24 ITR 70 which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 32 ITR 466 3. Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has supplied software which has been subsequently configured into the hardware by the assessee itself. Ld. Counsel for assessee placed his reliance upon the decision of Ericsson AB passed by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR placed his reliance upon the order passed by Asse…