Commissioner of Income-tax-3 v. Anthony John Pereira\n

425 ITR 134High Court2020#17906 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(14)(iii)(a)Section 2(14)(iii)(b)Section 50C

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)long term capital gainslong term capital gainsection 143(3)total income

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax-3 v. Anthony John Pereira\n

Shiva Corporation (India) Limited, Jaipur vs. Dy. CIT, CC-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1219/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)

…It is thus submitted that lands sold by assessee do not constitute Capital Assets. In this regard, reliance is placed on: Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-3 vs. Anthony John Pereira [2020] 115 taxmann.com 368 (Bombay)/[2020] 272 Taxman 138 (Bombay)/[2020] 425 ITR 134 (Bombay)[04-02-2020] INCOME TAX: Where Tribunal after considering census report and population certificate of a village and other relevant documents found that population of village was 5,912 which was less than statutory requirement of 10,000, Tribunal was justified in holding land in question sold by assessee which was situated in said village…

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

…ng 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 offered the gains arising out of sale of agricultural land to tax should not be a reason to assess…

Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 581/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, I.T.O. Ward-2, B-9/83, Near Ambaji Temple, Vapi. Vs. Haria Hospital Road, Gidc, Vapi (Gujarat)-396395. Pan No. Acppk 1953 R Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 50C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical Hearing) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, I.T.O. Ward-2, B-9/83, Near Ambaji Temple, Vapi. Vs. Haria Hospital Road, GIDC, Vapi (Gujarat)-396395. PAN No. ACPPK 1953 R Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee Assessee represented by Shri Rajesh Upadhayay, A.R. Department represented by Shri S.M. Keshkamat, CIT-DR Date of Institution of Appeal 24/08/2023 Date of hearing 25/10/2023 Date of pronouncement 29/11/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAW…

Precot Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 132/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.132/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Precot Limited Sf No.559/4, D Block, 4Th Floor, Income Tax, Hanudev Info Park, Nava India Road Corporate Circle-2, Udaiyampalayam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 028. Pan : Aabcp 3038K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 10(14)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं "ी अ!ण खोडिपया, लेखा सद& के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.132/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Assistant Commissioner of M/s. Precot Limited SF No.559/4, D Block, 4th floor, Income Tax, Hanudev Info Park, Nava India Road Corporate Circle-2, Udaiyampalayam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 028. PAN : AABCP 3038K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. S.Sridhar, Adv…

Manoj Suresh Raste, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 4(3), Pune

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 790/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.790/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Manoj Suresh Raste, The Income Tax Officer, Balajinivas, Perne Phata, Vs Ward-4(3), Pune. Perne, Haveli, Pune – 412207. . Pan: Aidpr 1215 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M.K.Kulkarani –Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 24.01.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-2/Wd 4(3),Pn/130/2014-15/490, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…ly argued during the course of hearing that the assessee’s land in issue sold/transferred in the relevant previous year was very much agricultural and therefore, it was never covered under section 2(14) of the defining a “capital asset”. He also quoted [2020] 425 ITR 134 (B.) PCIT Vs. A.J.Perera that their lordships have rejected the Revenue’s identical argument in case of the agricultural land sold by the concerned assessee. ITA No.790/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 (A) Manoj S.Raste Vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Pune 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to assessee’s foregoing arguments and find no merit therein. T…