What is CIT v. Smt. Debbie Alemao authority for?

Actual earning of agricultural income is not essential for determining the character of land as agricultural. The absence of agricultural income is legally irrelevant to this determination.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Smt. Debbie Alemao?

35 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Smt. Debbie Alemao (331 ITR 59), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Smt. Debbie Alemao come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 2(14)(iii), Section 139(1), Section 144, Section 144B, Section 144C(13).

CIT v. Smt. Debbie Alemao (331 ITR 59)

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)

…ds the land as agricultural land. Honourable Bombay High Court in CIT v. Siddharth J. Desai 139 ITR 628 (Bom HC) held that Revenue records are a vital and reliable indicator to determine the nature of land. Honourable Bombay High Court in CIT v. Debbie Alemao 331 ITR 59 (Bom HC) held that "Actual earning of agricultural income is not a sine qua non for determining the character of agricultural land." Absence of agricultural income is legally irrelevant. The AO has implicitly assumed that because no agricultural income was shown, the land is not agricultural. This assumption is unsustainable in law. 2.3 Even if th…

Thomas Cherian, Thane vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Txn

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

ITA 776/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Thomas Cherian .......... Appellant A-2, Happy House, Sector A9, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Thane 400703 [Pan: Apjpc6676G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: Shri Vardhaman Jain, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 53C

…not be carried on to come within the purview of agricultural land placing reliance on the following decisions: - i) CIT v. Venkateswara Hospital. 264 Taxman 90 (Mad) ii) SLP dismissed by Hon SC in the above case 264 taxman 89 iii) CIT v. Debbie Alemao (Smt.) 331 ITR 59 (Bom) iv) CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi, 404 ITR 173 (Mad) v) PCIT v. Anthony John Pereira 425 ITR 134(Bom) vi) PCIT V K. P. R. Developers 311 CTR 832 (Mad) vii) WTO V H. V. Mungale 32 CTR 301 (Bom) viii) ACIT V Ashok W. Wesavkar (Mum) (TM) ITA No.5147/2017 dated 25.01.2023 4. It was further contended that the mere fact that the appellant erroneously o…

Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 310/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

…as per the law prevailing in the state. In the absence of conversion of land into non agricultural, the character of land 8 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer continues to be agricultural as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Debbie Alimao 331 ITR 59. 14. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. M.R. Anandaram (HUF) [2023] 450 ITR 94 stretched further by holding that even if conversion of lands into nonagricultural purpose had taken place, if the assessee continues to be carry on agricultural operations, still the land is considered to be agricultural land. This decision was affi…

ACIT, Cochin vs. Sri.P.C.Jose, Cochin

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das &

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 40

…nverted to non agricultural use as per the law prevailing in the state. In the absence of conversion of land into non agricultural, the character of land continues to be agricultural as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Debbie Alimao 331 ITR 59. 26. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. M.R. Anandaram (HUF) [2023] 450 ITR 94 stretched further by holding that even if conversion of lands into nonagricultural purpose had taken place, if the assessee continues to be carry on agricultural P.C. Jose operations, still the land is considered to be agricultural land. This decisi…

Shahnaj, Near Bherudanji Well vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Income Tax Office

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Smt. Shanaj Vs The ITO W/o Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. FPMPS 3570 D Assessee By Shri Aman Saxena Advocate Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT-DR Revenue By Date of hearing 05/10/2024 Date of 01/01/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: DR S. SEETHALAKSHMI , JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 23-08-2024, National Faceless App…

George Gee Varghese, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 7(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3004/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3004/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri. George Gee Varghese, The Income-Tax Officer, S-103, 4Th Street, Anna Nagar, V. Non Corporate Ward -7(2), Chennai – 600 040. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Ahspg-4301-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. R. Viajayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

…subject lands were subjected to cultivation. hence, subject lands were agricultural lands beyond the municipal limits and cannot be treated as capital asset u/s. 2 (24) of the Act. 21. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in CIT Vs. Debbile Alemao (Smt. ) (2010) 331 ITR 59 (Bom.), agricultural land which was never sought to be used for non agricultural purpose by the assessee till it was sold, has to be treated as agricultural land, even though no agricultural income was shown by the assessee from this land, and therefore, no capital gain was taxable on the sale of the said land. 22.The Appellant craves leave to add…

DCIT, Chennai vs. K.Dhandapani and Co. Ltd., Chengalput

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit, K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., Corporate Circle-4(2), No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O No.109/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.1428/Chny/2017] "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., The Dcit, No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle-4(2), Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45

…does not result in generation of surplus that cannot be a ground to say that the land was not used for the agricultural purpose as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji-Goa v. Smt. Debbie Alemao [2011] 331 ITR 59 (Bom). Further, the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT vs. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) 105 ITR 133 (SC) declared as follows: Entries in revenue records are, not conclusive and such entries can raise only a rebuttable presumption, they are, however, good prima facie evidence. Following the view endorsed by t…

Noshir Darabshaw Talati, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1516/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Sr. A.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250Section 45

…e ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. (supra). The learned authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in CIT v. Smt. Debbie Alemao [2011] 331 ITR 59/196 Taxman 230/[2010] 8 taxmann.com 243 and Pune Bench of Tribunal in Haresh V. Milani v. Jt. CIT [2008] 114 ITD 428. The Perusal of facts of both the cases reflect that in both the abovesaid decisions, the land was cultivated by the assessee and even the nature of the crop is mentioned. However, in the facts of the present case before us as point…

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)

…ishna Anjanneya Subrahmanyam and other(1) and Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia (2))." ” 10. The learned counsel for Assessee also placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Debbie Alemao and Joaquim Alemao, reported in (2011) 331 ITR 59 (Bom.) wherein it was held that where the land is shown in revenue record as agricultural land and no permission was taken for conversion of land, it is immaterial whether any agricultural income is shown in the return or not, the gains from sale are exempt from taxation. 11. Based on the aforesaid decisions, the ld. counsel for the assessee submi…

Natasha Melwani, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 443/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं. 1067/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13) Navzer J. Irani, 142, Ashoka Apartments, 68, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006 Pan: Aaapi0625H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Opp. Bhatia Hospital, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 443/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13) Natasha Melwani, 142, Ashoka Apartments, 68, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006 Pan: Aaapi5937J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Opp. Bhatia Hospital, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain & Ms. Kavita Kaushik

Section 143(3)Section 54E

…d for non- agriculture purpose, therefore, it is immaterial that any income from agriculture is declared by the assesse in his return or not. To support his contentions, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Debbie Alemao , 331 ITR 59 (Bom) (ii) Kallepu Sharath vs. ACIT, in ITA No.843/Hyd./2017 for A.Y 2005-06, decided on 30/05/2018 5. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Jain, representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of CIT (A) and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has bifurcated lan…

Navzer J. Irani, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1067/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं. 1067/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13) Navzer J. Irani, 142, Ashoka Apartments, 68, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006 Pan: Aaapi0625H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Opp. Bhatia Hospital, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 443/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13) Natasha Melwani, 142, Ashoka Apartments, 68, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006 Pan: Aaapi5937J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Opp. Bhatia Hospital, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain & Ms. Kavita Kaushik

Section 143(3)Section 54E

…d for non- agriculture purpose, therefore, it is immaterial that any income from agriculture is declared by the assesse in his return or not. To support his contentions, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Debbie Alemao , 331 ITR 59 (Bom) (ii) Kallepu Sharath vs. ACIT, in ITA No.843/Hyd./2017 for A.Y 2005-06, decided on 30/05/2018 5. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Jain, representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of CIT (A) and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has bifurcated lan…

Harvinder Kumar Sahni, Lakhimpur-Kheri vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 28/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Harvinder Kumar Sahni V. The Dy. Cit Punjabi Colony Sitapur Gola Gokaran Nath Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Autps9076M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 03 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 03 2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R

Section 2(14)

…eld that the land not being within 8KM of the Municipal limit and agricultural operations have been carried on thereat till the date of transfer, the land was agricultural land and not exigible to capital gain. 17. In ‘CIT vs. Smt. Debbie Alemao and Another’, 331 ITR 59 (Bombay), it was held that where the land had been shown in the Revenue records as agricultural land and no permission had been taken by the assessee for its conversion of land use, no agricultural income having been shown in the return, was not material and that the gains from sale were exempt from tax. ITA No.28/LKW/2016 Page 7 of 8 18. In th…

Ashok C. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward -29(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2625/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Udaya B. Jakke

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

…In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:- i) Sercon Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, 136 ITR 881 (Guj.); ii) Mr.s Shakuntala Vedachalam & Ors., v/s ACIT, 369 ITR 558 (Mad.); iii) CIT v/s Debbie Alemao & Co., 331 ITR 59 (Bom.); iv) Chalsami Nagaratna Kumari v/s ITO, 79 taxmann.com 104 (Vizag.); v) CWT v/s H.V. Mungale, 145 ITR 208 (Bom.). 5. Shri Udaya B. Jakke, the learned Departmental Representative submitted, the very fact that the assessee was not carrying out any agricultural activity on the lands sold and held them for a period of 6 Shri Ashok C. Thakkar…

ACIT-25(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Vishal R. Suchak, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2051/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax – 25(3) V. Shri Vishal R. Suchak Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor 302, Hareshitchha Chs Pratyakshkar Bhavan Ns Road – 4, Jvpd Scheme Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Juhu, Vile Parle (W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 056

For Appellant: Shri Vijay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Harkamal Sohi Sandhu

Section 2(14)Section 45Section 54Section 54F

…ltural land in the property card and situated beyond 8 Km from the municipal limits it is not a “capital asset” liable for capital gains tax. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Debbie Allemao and Others [331 ITR 59]. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placing reliance on the 5 C.O.No. 104/MUM/2019 Shri Vishal R. Suchak decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd v. CIT [199 ITR 351] submits that the additional ground raised by the assessee be admitted in view of the said decision wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional…