CIT v. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim

136 ITR 621High Court1982#14920 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim

RAJEEV DEVIDAS NADKARNI,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-KUDAL, KUDAL

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

ITA 57/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Hon.(Through Virtual Hearing) Rajeev Devidas Nadkarni, Vs Ito, Ward-Kudal, At Galel, Post Banda, Taluka Kudal. Sawantwadi, Dist.Sindhudurg, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra. Pan: Ahapn 2937 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kumar Kale, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…dated 28/12/2018 u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act rejecting the contention of the assessee that the lands sold were agricultural lands placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim [1982] 136 ITR 621 (Guj.). Accordingly, the AO brought to tax the capital gains arising out of sale of land of Rs. 17,45,230/-. 2 Rajeev Devidas Nadkarni 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without going into the merits of the additions. 4. Agg…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(20, CHENNAI vs. RAMA NARAYANAN (LATE), L/H SHRINARAYANAN RAMASWAMY, CHENNAI

ITA 3080/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3080/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner – V. Mr.Rama Narayanan (Late) Of Income Tax, L/H Mr.Narayanan- Central Circle-2(2), Ramasamy, Chennai. No.14/19, Saraswathi Street, Mahalingapuram, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Achpr 5912 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

…the purpose of agriculture. It went on to add that it is not material if a small portion of the land was being used for the purpose of agriculture as well. 13. The Gujarat High Court in the same case being CIT Vs. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim reported in (1982) 136 ITR 621 (Guj) held that the fact that a particular piece of land is entered as agricultural land in revenue records and assessed as such under the Land Revenue Code would raise a presumption that the land is agricultural land, but the presumption can be rebutted by other circumstances pointing to the contrary conclusion. The facts that raise a presumptio…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. AYISHATHU JAILANI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

ITA 708/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250(6)

…be regarded as agricultural and for which land was used without an alteration of its character. 5.8 The decision of Supreme Court in the case of Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards ) was analysed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Sarifabibi Mohammed Ibrahim 136 ITR 621(Guj) and the legal position was summed up as follows:- (i) The fact that land is entered as agricultural land in revenue records and is assessed as such under the Land Revenue Code would be a circumstance in favour of conclusion that it is an agricultural land. However, this would raise only a prima facie presumption and said presumption can be d…

SHRI PRADHYUMANSINGHJI J. PADHIYAR (HUF),,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(2),, PETLAD

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

ITA 1374/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

…rein survey no 410 and 555 are not cultivable land but the land appearing in survey no 415/Paiki which is the major portion and is total agricultural. Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim, 136 ITR 621 wherein it is held that the land is entered as agricultural land in revenue records and is assessed as such under the land revenue side, would a circumstance in favour of conclusion that it is an agricultural land. Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of Apex Court in CWT vs. Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 4 of 5 Officer-in-charge, 105 ITR 133 w…

SHRI T.N. RAJAMOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assesse’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2540/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…in the remand proceedings, on examination of facts and circumstances of this case from the available material, considering various case laws viz the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sarifabibi and Court of Wards 204 ITR 631(SC) & 105 ITR 133(SC) , 136 ITR 621(Guj) , Gopal C Sharma Vs CIT 209 ITR 946 etc, the AO reported that the impugned land is not an agricultural land, the assessee has not brought any evidence to prove the claim of expenditure on development of land either during the assessment or during the remand proceedings , he made a round about claim by an after- thought with a motive of dep…

VENKATESWARA HOSPITAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1769/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: 02.02.2017

Section 2(14)

…ion was not used for agricultural purposes and hence not entitled for exemption from capital gains. The AO treated the asset as capital asset and taxed under capital gains. The AO relied on the decision of CIT vs. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim reported in (1982) 136 ITR 621 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Nand Kumar and Aggarwal & Others dated 19.11.1997 and other host of case laws. 4.0 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’) and relied on…