How many judgments cite CIT v. Sohan Khan?

16 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sohan Khan (304 ITR 194), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sohan Khan come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 115BBE, Section 139, Section 139(1), Section 143(1).

CIT v. Sohan Khan

304 ITR 194High Court2008#6973 most cited

What is CIT v. Sohan Khan authority for?

The sale of plots, even if developed from inherited land, is considered a disposal of a capital asset and taxable as capital gains, not business income or 'stock-in-trade'. This applies even if the land was held for a long time and the intention was to sell in piecemeal.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sohan Khan · 304 ITR 194 · capital gains · business income · stock-in-trade · adventure in nature of trade · disposal of capital asset · sale of plots

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 115BBE Section 139 Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

long term capital gain section 142(1)section 143(2)transfer person business document

Judgments citing CIT v. Sohan Khan

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Raichur

In the result, appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed

ITA 1006/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Ward – 1, 4-4-145, Zahirabad Raichur, Raichur. Raichur – 584 101, Karnataka. Pan :Anhpp 8615 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

…ble. On the other hand, the investigation report has subsequently rule the actual value of the property. Thus, the explanation submitted by the assessee can never be relied on. The Ao relied on the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sohan Khan reported in (2008) 304 ITR 194 (Raj). He further noted that the entire receipt of Rs.3,36,00,000/- was treated as unexplained income of the assessee from the sub -ploting and selling of plots during the year. The selling of plots during the year under consideration comes under the adventure in the nature of trade and is liable to be taxed under business head. Thirdly, the asse…

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner vs. Mukesh Shah, Sriganganagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

…the sale of these plots covered within the business activities of the assessee and income from the same constitutes business income. Reliance was placed from the Hon'ble Rajasthan high Court judgment in the case of Sohan Khan and Mohan Khan as reported in 304 ITR 194(Raj.). Accordingly, ld. AO held that the transaction of sale plots was in the nature of business activities and the claim of the assessee regarding indexation benefit was disallowed. The business income of the assessee from the sale of the plots was recomputed in the following manner:- Total sale consideration - Rs. 2,37,60,000/- Less: Purchase…

Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera, Surat vs. ITO(International Taxation), Surat

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren R.Vepari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271Section 45(2)

…as not required to pay tax and ultimately selling the land at FMV only by which even he was not required to pay profit on business income. Reliance is also placed on decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sohan Khan & Mohan Khan [2008] 304 ITR 194 has held as under: “Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -Capital gains – Chargeable as – Assessment, year 1994-95 – Where land was purchased in 1970, and after cloud of land ceiling laws, was cleared and other adjoining lands had been developed, it was decided to be sold in piecemeal by earmarking plots, nonetheless sale transaction would rema…

Sh. Surender Meena, 36, Pratap Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…ereafter selling the same in piecemeal after development, the profit arising would be taxed under the head capital gain and cannot be treated as adventure in the nature of trade. Some of these decisions are as under:- • CIT Vs. Sohan Khan & Mohan Khan [2008] 304 ITR 194 (Raj.) (HC) The held part of the order is as under:- In our view, one of the most significant considerations would be, the regularity of transaction of purchase and sale. Mere fact that there was a series of transactions of sale only, by selling the part of the whole land, purchased in one go, or purchased once upon a time, in 15 Sh. Surender Me…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. Shri Ravindra Mittal, Jaipur

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

ITA 823/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 823/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 D.C.I.T., Cuke Shri Ravindra Mittal, Vs. Circle-6, 804, Akshat Niley Apartment, Jaipur. Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aexpm 9057 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 54E

…e same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied on the impugned order. The ld. AR has also submitted that the case laws referred to by us including the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Sohan Khan Mohan Khan 304 ITR 194 (Raj.) have been found to be directly applicable in this case. The ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the fact of terms & conditions of the 5 ITA 823/JP/2019 & CO 29/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs Ravindra Mittal Development Agreement contained in paras 10. 11, 12, 13 and 14 and appreciating the legal position has held the gain to be chargeable to tax under the hea…

ACIT, Circle, Bharatpur vs. Shri Radhey Shyam Garg, Dholpur

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

ITA 1317/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chand Gupta (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (DCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 115BSection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH VC ’B’, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh- 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1317/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17. cuke Assistant Commissioner of Dr. Radhey Shyam Garg, Vs. Income-tax, Circle- Bharatpur, Mayuri Bhawan, G.T. Road, Bharatpur. NH-8, Dholpur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. ACPPG 8311 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent Cross Objection No. 02/JP/2020 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No…

Pushap Raj Bohra, Jalore vs. DCIT, Barmer Circle, Barmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aanpb 4456 C

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

…r income tax computation. Therefore reliance placed on by the Ld. CIT(A) on the judgement of Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi (supra) is uncalled for. It is pertinent to mention that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs Sohan Khan [2008] 304 ITR 194 (Raj) held as under: “4. The Assessing Officer found the sale to be not taxable as capital gain, but it was found to be a business income, and for that, the Assessing Officer found, that the original land is surrounded by many lands of his near relatives and family members, and if the plots would have been carved out from his land 9 ITA 158/Jod…

Ramesh Raj Bhra, Jalore vs. DCIT, Barmer Circle, Barmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aappb 7135 G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

…income tax computation. Therefore reliance placed on by the Ld. CIT(A) on the judgement of Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi (supra) is uncalled for. It is pertinent to mention that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs Sohan Khan [2008] 304 ITR 194 (Raj) held as under: 10 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT “4. The Assessing Officer found the sale to be not taxable as capital gain, but it was found to be a business income, and for that, the Assessing Officer found, that the original land is surrounded by many lands of his near relatives and family members, and if the plots would ha…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Vectra Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 376/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Priscilla Singsit, CIT (DR)

…appellant had held the shares as investment only and that the entire transaction was in the nature of investment only. In support of this view, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in CIT v. Sohan Khan & Mohan Khan (2008) 304 ITR 194. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced: 13. In our view, one of the most significant considerations would be, the regularity of transaction of purchase and sale. Mere fact that there was a series of transactions of sale only, by selling the part of the whole land, purchased in one go, or purchased once upon a time, in piecemeal, woul…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mohinder Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2310/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

…first step of purchase of land showed that it was taken as, or in the course of a trading transaction the profit cannot be taken as business income.” 4.5. The assessee also relied upon the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Sohan Khan and Mohan Khan [2008] 304 ITR 194 (Raj,). In this case the assessee purchased a large extent of land. The land was under the cloud of sealing laws and after it got clear therefrom, assessee prepared a site plan showing the land to be divided into different plots and the plots were accordingly sold. The AO held the profit from sale as transaction in the nature of trade on the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Arjun Puri, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

ITA 2309/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 2(13)Section 28Section 54F

Mahaveer Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 209/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (Addl.CIT)

Section 2(14)

…noted a purpose and design in the utilization of the land and it all pointed towards a business sense and eventually a business transaction. The appellant has cited Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court judgment in the case of Sohan Khan and Mohan Khan as reported in 304 ITR 194(Raj.), in favour of his claim. I have perused the judgment. However, the concluding para of the judgment has itself said that “......it is the different story that the question, as to whether a particular transaction falls within the category of adventure in the nature of trade “ or is merely a transaction of transfer of capital asset, since depe…

Pradeep Vatrana, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar

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

ITA 930/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P. P. Meena (JCIT)

Section 54

…e Court in case of G. Venkatas Swami Naidu vs. CIT 35 ITR 594, held that the principle laid down in the said case is applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Sohan Khan and Mohan Khan 304 ITR 194 is distinguishable on facts. Therefore, by not following the order of his predecessor CIT(A), he upheld the order passed by the AO. 2.7 It was submitted that this issue was first raised by the AO in AY 2010-11 where he considered the sale of 3 plots during that year as adventure in the nature of trade and assessed the income there from as busine…

M/S. Chandra Prakash Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Hapur

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 3032/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sh. Chandra Prakash Goel, C/O- M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Hapur Extension, Part-I, New Delhi Pan : Aatpg4288R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/02/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad For Assessment Year 2010-11, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…ntion to sell it later after developing it, thus it was merely a sale of capital asset and not an adventure in the nature of trade. In support of the contention he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT Vs. Sohan Khan 304 ITR 194(Raj), decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suresh Chander Goyal, 298 ITR 277 (MP), decision of Tribunal, Ranchi SMC bench in the case of Rajesh Kumar Kabra Vs. ITO , 93 TTJ 252. 3.7 Alternatively, the Ld. AR also submitted that even if the contention of the Revenue that the assessee had c…

T.D.Rajan vs. ITO

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1588/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & 1. Shri T D Satyan (Huf), Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (Huf) Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent

For Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, ACIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 263Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and 1. Shri T D Satyan (HUF), TDS Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. PAN:AABHT 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (HUF) TDS Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. PAN:AABHT 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent Assessees by: Shri Rajaram Kote, CA. Revenue by: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, ACIT(DR). Date of hearing : 23/11/2015 Date of pronouncement: 29/12/2015. O R D E R Per VIJAY PAL RAO, JM: These two appeals by the two connected assessees are directed ag…

T.D.Satyan vs. ITO

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1587/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, ACIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 263Section 54F