CIT v. Soundarya Nursery

241 ITR 530High Court2000#11341 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also reported as

123 Taxmann 372

Judgments citing CIT v. Soundarya Nursery

Mrs. Sabena Prakash, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1480/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 274Section 44A

…2008 w.e.f. 1.4.2009 clearly states that the income derived from saplings or seedlings grown in a nursery shall be deemed to be agricultural income. Further, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Soundarya Nursery [2000] 241 ITR 530/123 Taxman 372 (Mad.) held that even the plants grown in pots is an agricultural activity as they involve as the activities of agriculture farming like seeding, weeding, watering, manuring etc. At Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Judgment, it has been held as follows:- 8. All the products of the land, which have some utility either for consumption or fo…

Siddireddy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Kadiyam Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.326/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Siddireddy Veera Venkata Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Satyanarayana Murthy, Ward-2(3), Kadiyam Mandal, Rajahmundry. East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh-533126. Pan: Bpaps5187Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna, Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna, Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…ere added back to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC after considering the submissions of the assessee and also by following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Soundarya Nersery in 241 ITR 530 (Mad.) deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO for an amount of Rs. 14,09,178/- as explained by the assessee. The Ld. AR further explained that the assessee has substantiated his claim of net agricultural income of Rs. 26,51,178/-. However, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC denied the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee as the assessee has faile…

Himalaya Food International Ltd vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -04

ITA/14/2019HC Delhi28 Feb 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 263

…into the statute to nullify certain judicial pronouncements is factually incorrect. The courts have decided that income from nursery is agricultural income. 13.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Soundarya Nursery, (2000) 241 ITR 530 (Madras), in which the court observed as under: “8. All the products of the land, which have some utility either for consumption or for trade or commerce, if they are based on land, would be agricultural products. Here, it is not the case of the revenue that without performing This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S British Agro Products (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

ITA 970/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 2

…ought into the statute to nullify certain judicial pronouncements is factually incorrect. The courts have decided that income from nursery is agricultural income. 13.2. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Soundarya Nursery [2000] 241 ITR 530 (Madras), in which the court observed as under: “8. All the products of the land, which have some utility either for consumption or for trade or commerce, if they are based on land, would be agricultural products Here, it is not the case of the revenue that without performing the basic operations, only the subsequent operations, as described in t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S British Agro Products (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

ITA 969/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 2

…ought into the statute to nullify certain judicial pronouncements is factually incorrect. The courts have decided that income from nursery is agricultural income. 13.2. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Soundarya Nursery [2000] 241 ITR 530 (Madras), in which the court observed as under: “8. All the products of the land, which have some utility either for consumption or for trade or commerce, if they are based on land, would be agricultural products Here, it is not the case of the revenue that without performing the basic operations, only the subsequent operations, as described in t…

Madhu Velayudhan, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 137/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Madhu Velayudhan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jeedimetla, Ward – 11(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Agzpv7853R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya. Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudhan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.10.2022

For Appellant: Ms. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Madhu Velayudhan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jeedimetla, Ward – 11(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AGZPV7853R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. S. Sandhya. Revenue by: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 19.10.2022 Date of pronouncement: 20.10.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 arises from the order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyd…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Aurangabad vs. M/S. Nath Bio-Genes (I) Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1505/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 642/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal & Shri Vijay SabuFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10(1)Section 133(6)

…eds procured are from the lands not owned by the assessee. Further, AO rejected the arguments of the assessee and considered the following decisions relied upon by the assessee : i. Raja Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy 32 ITR 460 ii. CIT Vs. Soundarya Nursery (2000) 241 ITR 530 iii. Monsanto India Limited Vs. DCIT – ITA No.6093/Mum/2007 Eventually, AO taxed the entire claim of Agricultural income in all these assessment years under consideration. 7. During the subsequent assessment years, AO proceeded to invoke the provisions of section 133(6) of the Act in few select cases of growers to establish that the assessee i…

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Nath Bio-Geners (I) Ltd., Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 642/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 642/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal & Shri Vijay SabuFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10(1)Section 133(6)

…eds procured are from the lands not owned by the assessee. Further, AO rejected the arguments of the assessee and considered the following decisions relied upon by the assessee : i. Raja Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy 32 ITR 460 ii. CIT Vs. Soundarya Nursery (2000) 241 ITR 530 iii. Monsanto India Limited Vs. DCIT – ITA No.6093/Mum/2007 Eventually, AO taxed the entire claim of Agricultural income in all these assessment years under consideration. 7. During the subsequent assessment years, AO proceeded to invoke the provisions of section 133(6) of the Act in few select cases of growers to establish that the assessee i…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Futura Bioplants Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1271/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1271/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Vora & Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 10(1)Section 2

…ter etc. Assessee also relied on the following judicial precedents : 1. Raja Benoy Sahas Roy (1957) (32 ITR 466) 2. K.F. Bioplants – ITA No.146/PN/2009 dated 26-03- 3. Best Roses Biotech (P) Ltd (2012) (144 TTJ 645) (Ahd) 4. CIT Vs. Soundarya Nursery (2000) 241 ITR 530 (Mad) 5. CIT vs. Rana Gurjit Singh (2011) 340 ITR 108 (P&H HC) 6. Puransingh M. Verma vs. CIT (2014) 230 Taxman 470 (Guj HC) 7. ITO Vs. Dr. Seemantini S. Pathare (ITA No. 263/PN/2011) dated 23 January 2013 8. Smt. Reena Panda vs. ITO (2011) (47 SOT 533) (Cuttack Trib) ITO vs. Kisan Biotech (ITA No. 428/PN/2014) (Pune ITAT). CO No.41/PUN/2017…