CIT v. Siddharth J Desai

139 ITR 628High Court1983#2553 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 366,005 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

D.Yasodha, Chennai vs. Additional CIT, Chennai

ITA 1242/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Maurya, CITFor Respondent: 13.12.2017
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40

…l Basheer (M) v. ITO (1995) 54 ITO 336 (Hyd. Trib.) iii) Fazalbhoy Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT(Bom) 176 ITR 523 iv) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Nand Aggarwal AIR 1998, CS, 473, 476 v) Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Siddharth J Oesai (1983) 139 ITR 628 (Guj) Considering all the above facts and the case laws mentioned above, the fact remains that the land under Survey No. 178/2 belong to the appellant is not found to be an agricultural land at the time of sale i.e. on 5.10.2006 and therefore I am of the opinion that the sale transaction made by the appellant is not an exempted one but a capital…

A.Ebanezer Jeyaanbu, Ramanathapuram vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1519/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013—2014. A. Ebanezer Jeya Anbu, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 1/1045-1, Sethupathy Nagar, Of Income Tax, 3Rd Ring Road, Central Circle 1, Ramanathapuram. Madurai

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan C.A Department byFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 153C

…ch were spontaneous in nature. Again according to ld. Assessing Officer assessees themselves had admitted that there were no agricultural operations carried on. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siddharth J. Desai 139 ITR 628, ld. Assessing Officer held that the land in question could not be considered as agricultural. He computed the capital gains adopting the rate mentioned in the agreement for sale dated 02.08.2012 found at the time of search. 5. Aggrieved, assessees moved in appeals before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Assessees brought to the a…

Smt.Anusuyamma, Bangalore vs. ITO-Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2227/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarsmt.Anusuyamma, # 8/1, Beml Township, Gm Palya, New Thippasandra Post, Bengaluru-560075. … Appellant Pan:Aiopa 0312 D Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…ot come within the purview of tax under the head income from capital gains. Then the issue boils down to determine nature or character of the land whether agriculture or non-agriculture. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siddharth J.Desai (139 ITR 628) has laid down the following 13 tests for the purpose of ascertaining the character of the land at the time of sale: 1. Whether the land was classified in the revenue record as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? Page 14 of 20 2. Whether the land was actually or ordinarily used for agricultural purposes at or…

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

In the result, both the above tax case (appeals) are allowed

ITA 804/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 804/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. Sasikumar, IRS, JCIT

…e land sold by the assessee to M/s. Hindustan Educational and Charitable Trust at Othakalmandapam was not agricultural in nature. Ld. Assessing Officer also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. :- 5 -: Siddartha Desai (139 ITR 628). According to him if the yardsticks laid down by their lordship in the above judgment, was applied, the land sold by the assessee to M/s. Hindustan Educational and Charitable Trust could never be considered as agricultural in nature. In any case as per Assessing Officer frequency of the 5. transactions indulged by the assessee by way of purc…

M.M.Metacraft Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 144/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2016AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…se of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd, reported in (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Ker.). The reliance was also placed on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Benches, New Delhi, in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cosmo Films reported at 139 ITR 628 and the ITAT Calcutta in the case of Universal Cables Ltd. Vs DCIT reported at 68 SOT 307. 5. It was further submitted that the legislature made the amendment in the Act vide Finance Act, 2015 and inserted a proviso to Section 32(1)(iia) w.e.f. 01.04.2016. The proviso, inter alia, provides that balance 50% of the additional depreciation on new al…