CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani

270 ITR 40High Court2004#5375 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani authority for?

For the purposes of Section 54B, the location of land in a commercial area, its partial utilisation for non-agricultural purposes, or the vendees' intention to purchase for non-agricultural purposes are irrelevant considerations. The primary focus is on whether the land was agricultural.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani · Section 54B · agricultural land · non-agricultural purpose · commercial area · irrelevant consideration · vendees intention · capital gains exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 22 of the Income Tax ActSection 54 of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)(a)section 2(14)(iii)(b)section 2(13)section 63section 2(14)(iii)section 54bperiod of holdingsection 65section 2(14)transfer of capital assetput to usesection 139(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani

SUCHITRA TANDON,PRAYAGRAJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 2 ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 10/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 54

…I.T.A. No.10/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.10/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Suchitra Tandon, Vs. A.C.I.T., 57, Rani Mandi, Circle-2, Allahabad. Allahabad PAN:AFTPT6845G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Respondent by Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 09/04/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/05/2025 O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. This appeal vide I.T.A. No.10/Alld/2025 has been filed by the asse…

PALLATHUKADAVIL IBRAHIMKUTTY ABDUL KABEER,ERNAKULAM vs. THE PCIT KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the above terms, and his SA dismissed

ITA 428/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Sa No. 78/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Principal Cit – 1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil Vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [Pan: Aaopi0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54B

…in para 7 of his order the words ‘is not eligible’ be read as ‘may not be eligible’. The material gathered by the Revenue may though; rather, ought to be, put across to the assessee, who is to establish his claims, leading evidence (Asha George v. ITO [2013] 351 ITR 123 (Ker)). The ensuing assessment would accordingly be sustainable only on the basis of finding/s of fact, i.e., as to whether the facts admit of, or not, a claim u/s. 54B.We may also clarify that we may not be construed as having expressed any opinion in the matter, except that the AO’s enquiry is seriously wanting, and there had thus been no prope…

AJAY CHOUHAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

ITA 219/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.219/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ajay Chouhan Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income First Floor, Chouhan Estate Tax-1(1) Supela, Bhilai-490 023 32/32 Bunglow, Bhailai-490 009 (C.G.) Pan: Acfpc 0549K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.R. Rao, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06 /09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 02.06.2023 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Exemption Of Rs.47,90,164 Claimed U/S 54B Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961. 2) The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & On Facts. 3) The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Alter Or Omit All Or Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal In The Interest Of Justice.”

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, SR-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 548Section 54B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.219/RPR/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ajay Chouhan Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income First Floor, Chouhan Estate Tax-1(1) Supela, Bhilai-490 023 32/32 Bunglow, Bhailai-490 009 (C.G.) PAN: ACFPC 0549K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.R. Rao, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, SR-DR सुनवाई…

SRI K R UDAYA KUMAR,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 525/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234A

…9.13. We may refer to a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 where the Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case Page 12 of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40/[2003] 133 Taxman 712and has observed and held as under : "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240: (2004) 270 ITR 40(P&H), wherein it is held that the land being located in a commercial area or the land having been partially utilised for nonagricultural purposes or that the vendees had also purchased…

LAKHME CHAND ASWANI ,HALDWANI vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), HALDWANI

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

ITA 5224/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Through Video Conferencing At New Delhi] [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Lakhme Chand Aswani, Vs Ito, Gajajoli, Uttar Bareilly Road, Ward-1(2), Haldwani, Utarakhand. Haldwani. Pan-Agnpa7702N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Prashant Kacker, Adv. Respondent By Smt.Mayank Prabha Tomar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 Order

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 45

…eability to tax u/s 45 of the Act, would arise only if on the date of sale of land in question retained its character as capital asset. Reliance was placed upon the judgement of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40 [P&H]. Further, reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Madhu Kumar N.(HUF) [2012] 23 taxmann.com 341 (Kar.). The contention that the population of the town where the land in question was situated, was less than 10,000/- therefore, there would not be application of section 2(14) of the Act and the…

ISHWAR DWELLINGS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 44/LKW/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(14)Section 263

…dras High Court in the case of CWT vs. E. Udayakumar (2006) 284 ITR 511 (Mad) where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240 : (2004) 270 ITR 40 (P&H) and has observed and held as under: "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT vs. Smt Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240 : (2004) 270 ITR 40 (P&H), wherein it is held that the land being located in a commercial area or the land having been partially utilised for non-agricultural purposes or that the vendees had also purchased it for non-a…

G N VENUGOPAL,DEVANAHALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 306/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…or not. 9.13. We may refer to a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 where the Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40/[2003] 133 Taxman 712and has observed and held as under : "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240: (2004) 270 ITR 40(P&H), wherein it is held that the land being located in a commercial area or the land having been partially utilised for nonagricultural purposes or that the vendees had also purchased…

G N VENUGOPAL,DEVANAHALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 305/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…or not. 9.13. We may refer to a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 where the Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40/[2003] 133 Taxman 712and has observed and held as under : "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240: (2004) 270 ITR 40(P&H), wherein it is held that the land being located in a commercial area or the land having been partially utilised for nonagricultural purposes or that the vendees had also purchased…

G N VENUGOPAL,DEVANAHALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 304/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…or not. 9.13. We may refer to a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 where the Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40/[2003] 133 Taxman 712and has observed and held as under : "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240: (2004) 270 ITR 40(P&H), wherein it is held that the land being located in a commercial area or the land having been partially utilised for nonagricultural purposes or that the vendees had also purchased…

G N VENUGOPAL,DEVANAHALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 303/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…or not. 9.13. We may refer to a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 where the Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani [2004] 270 ITR 40/[2003] 133 Taxman 712and has observed and held as under : "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240: (2004) 270 ITR 40(P&H), wherein it is held that the land being located in a commercial area or the land having been partially utilised for nonagricultural purposes or that the vendees had also purchased…

CHHAYA VILAS DENGLE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2462/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 139Section 45Section 45mSection 54BSection 55

…se of the assessee. Beyond this, nothing else is required to get the deduction u/s 54B of the Act when the second condition is not at all disputed by the Department. Even the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 270 ITR 40 (P&H) has categorically held that the exemption u/s 54B is available to the seller of a capital asset being land, however, the said land against which the benefit is sought must have been used by the assessee for agricultural purposes for the two years immediately preceding the date of sale. Having satisfied this condition, we are of the considere…

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)

…dras High Court in the case of CWT vs. E. Udayakumar (2006) 284 ITR 511 (Mad) where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240 : (2004) 270 ITR 40 (P&H) and has observed and held as under : "8. It is well settled in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Savita Rani (2004) 186 CTR (P&H) 240 : (2004) 270 ITR 40 (P&H), wherein it is held that the land being located in a commercial area or the land having been partially utilised for non- agricultural purposes or that the vendees had also purchased it for no…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT vs. SHRI RAMESH L. POLRA,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2320/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2320 & 2290/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Vs. 1. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 1. The Deputy Commissioner 11, Haridarshan Society, Of Income Tax, Gajera School Circle, Central Circle-2, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] 2. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 2. The Deputy 11, Haridarshan Society, Commissioner Of Income Gajera School Circle, Surat. Tax,Central Circle-2, [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] Surat. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 54BSection 69Section 69A

…the assessee has been used for agricultural purpose, he becomes entitled for claim of deduction u/s.54B on land, even if it is not cultivated but gets it cultivated under his supervision. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Asha George vs. ITO [2013] 351 ITR 123 also expresses similar view. We further observe that the assessee has been earning agricultural income from these lands from the A.Y. 2007-08 to 2013-14, which is evident from the copy of return filed by the assessee, which are placed at paper book, page 8 to 37. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the…

SHRI RAMESH LALJIBHAI POLRA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2290/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2320 & 2290/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Vs. 1. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 1. The Deputy Commissioner 11, Haridarshan Society, Of Income Tax, Gajera School Circle, Central Circle-2, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] 2. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 2. The Deputy 11, Haridarshan Society, Commissioner Of Income Gajera School Circle, Surat. Tax,Central Circle-2, [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] Surat. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 54BSection 69Section 69A

…the assessee has been used for agricultural purpose, he becomes entitled for claim of deduction u/s.54B on land, even if it is not cultivated but gets it cultivated under his supervision. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Asha George vs. ITO [2013] 351 ITR 123 also expresses similar view. We further observe that the assessee has been earning agricultural income from these lands from the A.Y. 2007-08 to 2013-14, which is evident from the copy of return filed by the assessee, which are placed at paper book, page 8 to 37. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI RAJKUMAR RATHI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 125/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 125/Rpr/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rajkumar Rathi, Kawardha Bada, Opp. Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur (C.G.) Pin-492001 Pan: Aappr0032A ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Adv. Revenue By : Shri A.K. Laskar, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Laskar, JCIT
Section 54B

…income of the agricultural produce.” The ITAT has given following verdict at para no-8 of the order :- “We have heard both the sides in the light of the compilation filed and orders of the Authorities below. We have also perused the decision of Savita Rani, 270 ITR 40. The Hon‟ble High Court has opined that the benefit of exemption is not restricted to agricultural land only but the benefit is to be granted if, the land is used for agricultural purposes. Upholding the view of the Tribunal, relief u/s 54B of the IT Act was allowed. Accordingly, we are of the view that the issue is not having substantial far reac…

SMT.HALIMA ZUBAIR,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 116/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 2(14)Section 54F

…ssee for the year under consideration and also for the earlier years. The CIT(A) relied on the following judicial pronouncements, which the Assessing Officer also relied on. (i) M.K.Abdul Rehman v. DCIT (16 taxman.com 406) (Coch) (ii) Smt.Asha George v. ITO (351 ITR 123) (Ker.) (iii) Kalpetta Estate Ltd. V. CIT (61 taxman 54) (Ker.) (iv) Shahnaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [(2009) 3 KLT 899 (Ker.) 6. The CIT(A) also rejected the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act for the reason that the claim was not made in the return of income filed by the assessee. 7 Smt.Halima Zubair. 7. Aggrieved by the CI…

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ MURLIDHAR GIRDHARILAL, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 173/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 131Section 54B

…is submissions placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narsing Gopal Patil in Income Tax Appeal No. 2319 of 2013 decided on March 1, 2016 by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court; ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Savita Rani, 270 ITR 40 (P&H); iii. Asha George Vs. Income Tax Officer, 351 ITR 123 (Kerala); iv. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Govardhan S. Pawar, 167 ITD 511 (Pune); v. Majid Khan Nisar Khan Vs. ITO, 59 ITR (Pune-Trib.) 68. 6. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. We have also cons…

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ JUGALKISHOR GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 172/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 131Section 54B

…is submissions placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narsing Gopal Patil in Income Tax Appeal No. 2319 of 2013 decided on March 1, 2016 by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court; ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Savita Rani, 270 ITR 40 (P&H); iii. Asha George Vs. Income Tax Officer, 351 ITR 123 (Kerala); iv. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Govardhan S. Pawar, 167 ITD 511 (Pune); v. Majid Khan Nisar Khan Vs. ITO, 59 ITR (Pune-Trib.) 68. 6. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. We have also cons…

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ SATYANARAYAN GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 171/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 131Section 54B

…is submissions placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narsing Gopal Patil in Income Tax Appeal No. 2319 of 2013 decided on March 1, 2016 by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court; ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Savita Rani, 270 ITR 40 (P&H); iii. Asha George Vs. Income Tax Officer, 351 ITR 123 (Kerala); iv. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Govardhan S. Pawar, 167 ITD 511 (Pune); v. Majid Khan Nisar Khan Vs. ITO, 59 ITR (Pune-Trib.) 68. 6. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. We have also cons…

THE ITO-2(2), INDORE vs. SMT. MOHAN BAI POKHRANA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 468/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.468/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

…have been used by the assessee or his parents for agricultural purposes before two years immediate preceding the date of sale. This this view is also supported by the above decision. In the case of Smt. Asha George v. ITO (2013) 30 taxmann.com 334 (Kerala) / 351 ITR 123 (Ker)/ 214 Taxman 236 (Ker) held that the emphasis given in section 54B is the use to land is put (in fact , the tribunal has correctly held that it is user of land and not the nature of land that is relevant), in other word it is not necessary that the land which is transferred must be a agricultural land as such. The fact that the land is locat…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Smt. Savita Rani (270 ITR 40) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax