CIT vs B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC); Vishnudatta Antharjanam v. Commr. of Agril.l.T

78 ITR 58Supreme Court of India1970#14609 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT vs B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC); Vishnudatta Antharjanam v. Commr. of Agril.l.T

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GOMANTAK EXIMIS LTD.,

ITA/1163/2018HC Delhi15 Jul 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 115JSection 2Section 2(14)(iii)

…sold, the sale proceeds do not constitute revenue but capital:(see Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Kailas Rubber and Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 435 (SC) ; MANU/SC/0206/1965 and A. K. T. K. M. Vishnudatta Antharjanam v. Commr. of Agrl. I.T. (1970) 78 ITR 58 (SC) ; MANU/SC/0217/1970. The profits or gains arising from the sale of land constitute income because section 2(24) of the Act includes as 'income' capital gains chargeable under section 45. Such gain is, Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:23.07.2024 16:18:30 Signature Not Verified ITA 1163/2018 Page 10 of 17 neve…

THE ACIT,, KOTTAYAM vs. KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 441/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)

…udgment of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in CIT vs Jacob (E.C.) (1973) 89 ITR 88 (Ker)(FB) and the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC); Vishnudatta Antharjanam vs Commr. of Agril.l.T. (1970) 78 ITR 58 (SC) and in CIT vs Ambat Echukutty Menon (1979) 120 ITR 70 (SC) found that the receipt on sale of trees grown spontaneously has to be treated as capital in nature and since there is no cost of acquisition, it cannot be assessed as taxable income. This judgment of the Calcutta High Court is directly on the point regarding the taxability of the trees…

THE ACIT,, KOTTAYAM vs. KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 440/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)

VIKAS GLOBALONE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2498/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Piyush KamalFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 37Section 80I

…pon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Agriculture vs., Kailas Repair & Co., Ltd., 60 ITR 435 (SC), A.K.T.K.M. Vishnudatta Antharjanam vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax 70 ITR 58 (SC), CIT vs. Ambat Echukutty Menon 120 ITR 70 (SC). The assessing officer accepted the agricultural income earned by the assessee which were claimed as exempt by 24 ITA.No.2498/Del./2018 M/s. Vikas Globalone Ltd., (Now known as M/s. Vikas Ecotech Ltd.,) New Delhi. assessee. The Government Awarded compensation after making Inspection and in case, no trees, plants or nursary was grown in the im…

DY.C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S RISHABH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD, RAIPUR

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

ITA 157/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 165Section 4Section 44A

…s a result of termination of distribution agreement and that compensation represented capital receipt. 21. The case of the appellant also finds support from the decision in A.K.T.K.M. Vishnudatta Antharjanam vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax (1970) 78 ITR 58 (SC) wherein it was held that “It seems to us that the well-known test laid down by the Privy Council in CIT v.v. Shaw Wallace & Co. (1932) 2 Comp. Cas. 276 ; 6 ITC178 ; AIR 1932 PC 138 to find out whether a particular receipt is income is not satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to that test, income connotes a p…

SUBHASH RAMRAO ALONE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1053/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 69

…lturists that such grown up trees are not separately sold. The purchasers pay for them separately. 2. The sale of agricultural land has been accepted. So long as the trees are uncut they form a part of the land. (Vishnudatta Antharjanam (AKTKM) v. CIT (1971) 78 ITR 58 (SC). It is also held in CIT v. Ramaih Reddy (1986) 158 ITR 611 (Kar) that "if land with forest thereon be entirely sold in one transaction, the sales proceeds would be on capital account. But in this case since it was agricultural land with forest thereon their sale is also exempt from taxation. The appellant assessee was owner of the tree and lan…

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RNT PLANTATIONS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (Ground NO

ITA 28/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.28/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 D.C.I.T, Circle – 4(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Rnt Plantations Ltd. 1 & 2, Old Court House Corner, Kolakta – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr 1876K (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Revenue/Department By :Shri Kalyannath, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Assessee By :Smt. Nilima Joshi, Fca सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iv, Kolkata, Dated 08.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961,(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 01.12.2011. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Deleting The Addition Of Rs.10,00,192/- On Account Of Cess On Green Leaf Ignoring The Fact That Very Decisions Of The Itat Kolkata, Bases On Which The Issue Was Arbitrated, Has Been Challenged By The Revenue In The Apex Court By Way Of Filing A Slp.

For Appellant: Smt. Nilima Joshi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri KalyanNath, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…constituted, capital assets and the proceeds derived therefrom by sale as firewood would not constitute agricultural income under the Act. It has been also held by the Hon`ble apex Court in the case of A.T.K.H. VisnudattaAntharjanam vs. Commr. Agrl. IT (1970) 78 ITR 58 (SC) : TC 38R.801, that the sale of trees by removing the roots results in the removal of the sources from which fresh growth of trees would take place and the receipts from the sale of trees after uprooting would constitute a capital receipt. It was also held by Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K.T.K.M. VISHNUDATTA ANTHARJANAM (1970) 78 ITR…