CIT v. Siddharth J Desai

139 ITR 628High Court1983#2585 most cited

What is CIT v. Siddharth J Desai authority for?

This case lays down 13 specific tests and factors for determining whether land qualifies as agricultural land under the Income-tax Act. It holds that obtaining permission to sell agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes shortly before the sale does not automatically alter its agricultural character.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Siddharth J Desai · 139 ITR 628 · Section 2(14) · Section 2(14)(iii) · agricultural land definition · tests for agricultural land · capital asset exclusion · character of land · sale of agricultural land · Bombay Tenancy Act permission

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 115adsection 2(1a)section 2(1)section 63section 2(14)(iii)section 60section 115asection 2(14)section 65transfer of capital assetdate of transferput to use

Judgments citing CIT v. Siddharth J Desai

NAROTTAM ATMARAM WARDE,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

ITA 3139/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3139/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- S Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. Pan: Abypw5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ronak Jain Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 08.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 13.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Leamed Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Interpreting Law & Facts In Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Prosecution

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.3139/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- s Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. PAN: ABYPW5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Ronak Jain Revenue by Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.CIT Date of hearing 29/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 09/02/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This i…

MRS. SNEHLATA GOEL,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1793/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri S K Tulsian and Lata Goel
Section 133(6)Section 2(14)Section 250

…has to be drawn on a cumulative consideration of all the relevant facts. 12. Further in the above case the Apex Court considered the decision of division Bench of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Siddharth J Desai [1982] 10 Taxman 1/[1983] 139 ITR 628 which has laid down 13 test or factors which are required to be considered and upon consideration of which, the question whether the land is agricultural or not, has got to be decided or answered. The said 13 test are reproduced as under: "1. Whether the land was classified in the Revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the…

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 540/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR(Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…onversation from agriculture to non- agriculture purpose as it is the condition precedent for selling the land to the person who is not registered farmer in the revenue record of the State Government. The Hon'ble Gujarat High in CIT v. Sidharth J Desai (1983) 139 ITR 628 (Guj) held that there are several factor to determine the real and held that permission under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained by the assessee to sell the lands to the society for residential purposes would not, militate against the land continuing to be agricultural on the date of its sale, as the permissi…

BHADRABALA DHIMANTRAI JOSHI,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

…e Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court : (a) Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi vs. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 664 (Guj.) (b) Motibhai D. Patel vs. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 671 (Guj) (c) Manibhai Motibhai Patel vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 120 (Guj.) (d) CIT vs. Siddharth J. Desai (1983) 139 ITR 628 (Guj) (e) PCIT vs. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta, (Guj H.C. Appeal no. 672 of 2018) (f) CIT vs. Manilal Somnath , 106 ITR 917 (Guj.) (g) Chhotalal Prabhudas vs. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 631 and others. 5.3 It is submitted by the Ld. AR that in view of furnished documents, supporting evidences and judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, it is clear t…

MR DNYANESHWAR BABURAO KATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 432/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.432/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Pune. Kathe, Janori Dhawa, 10Th Mail Road, Dindori, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Bbppk3199D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit(A) Has Erred & Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.31,58,740/- By Treating The Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In The Saving Bank Account Of Dena Bank As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Cash Deposited In The Bank Was Out Of Agriculture Sale Proceeds. The Appellant Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 148Section 3Section 50CSection 54F

…Subhas Gaikwad vs. DCIT, 60 taxmann.com 259 (Pune – Trib.). (ii) Gopal C. Sharma vs. CIT, 209 ITR 946 (Bombay). 10 (iii) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. CIT, 204 ITR 631 (SC). (iv) CIT vs. V.A. Trivedi, 172 ITR 95 (Bombay). (v) CIT vs. Siddharth J. Desai, 139 ITR 628 (Gujarat). 10. We have heard Ld. Counsel from both the sides and perused the material available on record including additional evidences furnished by the assessee and case laws relied on by both the parties. We find that the assessee has challenged addition of Rs.31,58,540/- and determination of long term capital gain of Rs.39,35,662/-. We find t…

KANUBHAI VANMALIBHAI PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

…ecord. To support his various submissions, the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws;  Malabar Industrial Company Private Limited (2000) 243 ITR 83-SC,  Shreeji Prints (2021) 130 taxmann.com 293 (Gujarat),  CIT Vs Sidharth J Desai (1983) 139 ITR 628 (Guj),  Ashok Motilal Kataria (308 ITR (AT)-298),  Rajesh Kumar Kabra ( 93 TTJ -252) (Ranchi),  Narayan Prabhu Gavali (2006) 5 SOT-558 (Bang.),  S K. Kantilal (231 CTR 531- P&H),  Delhi Apartment (P) Limited (135 ITD-441) (Delhi), 15 Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF Vs ITO  Harjit Singh Sanga (37 taxmann.com 63 P& H),  P. K. N. & Co Limited…

SHRI RAVI PRAKASH LANGER PROP M/S LANGER AUTO SALES & SEVICES, UJJAIN,UJJAIN vs. ACIT 2 (1), UJJAIN

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

ITA 106/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Apurva Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54B

…order and the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. D.R. submitted that no Form No. B-1, B-2 was submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). The Ld. D.R. relied upon decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Siddharth J. Desai 139 ITR 628 as well as the decision of Pune Tribunal in case of Abhijit Subhash Gaikwad vs. DCIT 259/70 SOT 429. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that from the sale deed as well as the land records the assessee has clearly set out that the land was related to agricultural la…

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

ITA 250/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. P.N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Bains v. Pr. CIT sale of land transactions are regular business transactions of the assessee in the real estate business. The Pr.CIT, Bathinda in its order has also discussed the case of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Siddarth J.Desai(1983) 139 ITR 628 (Guj.) 15. It is evident from the assessment Order that the assessee was not in the business of the real estate and the transaction in question is an isolated transaction as the assessee is not doing business of real estate Accordingly, the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siddarth J. Desai (1983) 139 ITR…

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)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ6वाल ,लेखा सद9 के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.708/Chny/2016 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2006-07) ACIT Smt. Ayishathu Jailani, बनाम Non Corporate Circle-3, No.47, Model School Road, / Vs. Chennai. Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AEWPJ-9087-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri S. Sridhar (…

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)

…time to time. 44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (204 ITR 631) has approved the decision of a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siddharth J. Desai (1982) 28 CTR (Guj) 148 : (1983) 139 ITR 628 (Guj) and has laid down 13 tests or factors which are required to be considered and upon consideration of which, the question whether the land is an agricultural land or not has got to be decided or answered. We reproduce the said 13 tests as follows : 1. Whether the land was classified in the Revenue records as agricultural and whether it was s…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES & INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITA/179/2014HC Kerala28 Oct 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 260A

…re from the date of sale deed. Admittedly, KSIDC, in due course of time, upon purchase from the assessee, converted the schedule property into an industrial estate. He argues that the case on hand does not satisfy the applicable cumulative tests 4 (1983) 139 ITR 628 5 (1971) 81 ITR 446 (Guj) I.T.A. No.179/2014 -14- referred to above and the findings recorded by the Tribunal, though are findings of fact, still, the findings are unavailable to the admitted circumstances of the case. It is contended that barren land cannot be included as agricultural land. According to Revenue, the order under appeal suf…

SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR SEKHARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1767/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…ue as agricultural land under the State Revenue Law is certainly a relevant fact but it is not conclusive. In para 12 of their decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Siddharth J Desai [1983] 139 ITR 628 (Guj), where 13 factors/indicators had been evolved to ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others determine whether land was agricultural or not. The 13 factors approved by the Apex Court were the following : (1) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (2) Whether the l…

SMT POOJA SEKHARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1766/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…ue as agricultural land under the State Revenue Law is certainly a relevant fact but it is not conclusive. In para 12 of their decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Siddharth J Desai [1983] 139 ITR 628 (Guj), where 13 factors/indicators had been evolved to ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others determine whether land was agricultural or not. The 13 factors approved by the Apex Court were the following : (1) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (2) Whether the l…

SHRI GAURAV SEKHARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1765/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…ue as agricultural land under the State Revenue Law is certainly a relevant fact but it is not conclusive. In para 12 of their decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Siddharth J Desai [1983] 139 ITR 628 (Guj), where 13 factors/indicators had been evolved to ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others determine whether land was agricultural or not. The 13 factors approved by the Apex Court were the following : (1) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (2) Whether the l…

SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5378/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…ue as agricultural land under the State Revenue Law is certainly a relevant fact but it is not conclusive. In para 12 of their decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Siddharth J Desai [1983] 139 ITR 628 (Guj), where 13 factors/indicators had been evolved to ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others determine whether land was agricultural or not. The 13 factors approved by the Apex Court were the following : (1) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (2) Whether the l…

SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5377/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…ue as agricultural land under the State Revenue Law is certainly a relevant fact but it is not conclusive. In para 12 of their decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Siddharth J Desai [1983] 139 ITR 628 (Guj), where 13 factors/indicators had been evolved to ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others determine whether land was agricultural or not. The 13 factors approved by the Apex Court were the following : (1) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (2) Whether the l…

M/S. KEERTHI INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5375/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…ue as agricultural land under the State Revenue Law is certainly a relevant fact but it is not conclusive. In para 12 of their decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Siddharth J Desai [1983] 139 ITR 628 (Guj), where 13 factors/indicators had been evolved to ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others determine whether land was agricultural or not. The 13 factors approved by the Apex Court were the following : (1) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (2) Whether the l…

M/S. NOVA INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5364/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…ue as agricultural land under the State Revenue Law is certainly a relevant fact but it is not conclusive. In para 12 of their decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Siddharth J Desai [1983] 139 ITR 628 (Guj), where 13 factors/indicators had been evolved to ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others determine whether land was agricultural or not. The 13 factors approved by the Apex Court were the following : (1) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (2) Whether the l…

SMT. SHOBHA SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5362/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…ue as agricultural land under the State Revenue Law is certainly a relevant fact but it is not conclusive. In para 12 of their decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Siddharth J Desai [1983] 139 ITR 628 (Guj), where 13 factors/indicators had been evolved to ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others determine whether land was agricultural or not. The 13 factors approved by the Apex Court were the following : (1) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (2) Whether the l…

SMT. PUJA SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5361/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…ue as agricultural land under the State Revenue Law is certainly a relevant fact but it is not conclusive. In para 12 of their decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Siddharth J Desai [1983] 139 ITR 628 (Guj), where 13 factors/indicators had been evolved to ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others determine whether land was agricultural or not. The 13 factors approved by the Apex Court were the following : (1) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (2) Whether the l…

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3