CWT v. H.V. Mungale

145 ITR 208High Court1984#7109 most cited

What is CWT v. H.V. Mungale authority for?

Revenue records raise a rebuttable presumption regarding the character of land. The burden to rebut this presumption lies with the Revenue, requiring them to lead evidence on the intended use of the land.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CWT v. H.V. Mungale · revenue records presumption · rebuttable presumption · burden of proof on revenue · intended user of land · character of land · agricultural land · 145 ITR 208 · 12 Taxmann 201

Also reported as

12 Taxmann 201

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 CWT v. H.V. Mungale

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

…ord to show that the presumption rose from Page 11 the long user of the land for agricultural purpose and also the presumption arising from the entries of the Revenue records are rebutted. 9.10. The Bombay High Court in the case of CWT v. H.V. Mungale [1984] 145 ITR 208/12 Taxman 201 held that the Supreme Court had pointed out that the entries raised only a rebuttable presumption and some evidence would, therefore, have to be led before taxing authorities on the question of intended user of the land under consideration before the presumption could be rebutted. The Court further held that the Supreme Court had cl…

Shri Tushar Jagmohan Kamthe, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 56/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviand Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.56/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Tushar Jagmohan Kamthe, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.6, Shiv Complex, V Ward-14(4), Pune. Kondhwa, Pune – 411048. S Pan: Amepk 2042 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Pune Dated 15.10.2019For The A.Y. 2013-14Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned A.O. Erred In Not Treating The Land As Agriculture Land By Disregarding Appellant’S Contention & Thereby Further Erred In Denying Exemption Claimed U/S 54B For Sum Of Rs.55,46,892/-. Your Appellant Prays For Appropriate Relief.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Sold A Land Along His Family Members Admeasuring 80 H.75R Situated At Yewlewadi, Tal.

Section 250Section 54B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.56/PUN/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Tushar Jagmohan Kamthe, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.6, Shiv Complex, V Ward-14(4), Pune. Kondhwa, Pune – 411048. s PAN: AMEPK 2042 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod Shingte – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 28/10/2022 Date of pronouncement 01/11/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appe…

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

…mption rose from the long user of the land for agricultural purpose and also the presumption arising from the entries of the Revenue records are rebutted. 6.4. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CWT vs. H. V. Mungale (1983) 32 CTR (Bom) 301 : (1984) 145 ITR 208 (Bom) held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had pointed out that the entries raised only a rebuttable presumption and some evidence would, therefore, have to be led before taxing authorities on the question of intended user of the land under consideration before the presumption could be rebutted. The Court further held that the Supreme Court had cl…

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

…g on record to show that the presumption rose from the long user of the land for agricultural purpose and also the presumption arising from the entries of the Revenue records are rebutted. 9.10. The Bombay High Court in the case of CWT v. H.V. Mungale [1984] 145 ITR 208/12 Taxman 201 held that the Supreme Court had pointed out that the entries raised only a rebuttable presumption and some evidence would, therefore, have to be led before taxing authorities on the question of intended user of the land under consideration before the presumption could be rebutted. The Court further held that the Supreme Court had cl…

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

…g on record to show that the presumption rose from the long user of the land for agricultural purpose and also the presumption arising from the entries of the Revenue records are rebutted. 9.10. The Bombay High Court in the case of CWT v. H.V. Mungale [1984] 145 ITR 208/12 Taxman 201 held that the Supreme Court had pointed out that the entries raised only a rebuttable presumption and some evidence would, therefore, have to be led before taxing authorities on the question of intended user of the land under consideration before the presumption could be rebutted. The Court further held that the Supreme Court had cl…

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

…g on record to show that the presumption rose from the long user of the land for agricultural purpose and also the presumption arising from the entries of the Revenue records are rebutted. 9.10. The Bombay High Court in the case of CWT v. H.V. Mungale [1984] 145 ITR 208/12 Taxman 201 held that the Supreme Court had pointed out that the entries raised only a rebuttable presumption and some evidence would, therefore, have to be led before taxing authorities on the question of intended user of the land under consideration before the presumption could be rebutted. The Court further held that the Supreme Court had cl…

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

…g on record to show that the presumption rose from the long user of the land for agricultural purpose and also the presumption arising from the entries of the Revenue records are rebutted. 9.10. The Bombay High Court in the case of CWT v. H.V. Mungale [1984] 145 ITR 208/12 Taxman 201 held that the Supreme Court had pointed out that the entries raised only a rebuttable presumption and some evidence would, therefore, have to be led before taxing authorities on the question of intended user of the land under consideration before the presumption could be rebutted. The Court further held that the Supreme Court had cl…

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)

…tion raised from the long user of the land for agricultural purpose and also the presumption arising from the entries of the Revenue records are rebutted. 47. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CWT vs. H. V. Mungale (1983) 32 CTR (Bom) 301 : (1984) 145 ITR 208 (Bom) held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had pointed out that the entries raised only a rebuttable presumption and some evidence would, therefore, have to be led before taxing authorities on the question of intended user of the land under consideration before the presumption could be rebutted. The Court further held that the Supreme Court had cl…

Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Jatiya, Mumbai

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

ITA 95/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(1) Vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Room No. 676B, 6Th Jatiya, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), Mk Road, Mumbai – 91, Marine Lines, 400020. Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Accpj8343D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Sanjiv Jain. Dr Respondent By : Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Sanjiv Jain. DRFor Respondent: Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54B

…ricultural land merely by not carrying out agricultural operations on said land, and also not merely by the intention of the purchaser of said land. The above principle was laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CWT vs. 11.V. Mungale [1983] 145 ITR 208 (Born.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has elaborately explained the treatment of a land as agriculture land in following words: section 2(e)( I) of the W.T. Act. On the facts of that case, the lands were held to be agricultural lands. What we are concerned with is the proposition which was set out by the Division Bench after reference to the sev…

G Vijay Padma, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 3295/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaismt. G Vijay Padma, No.206, 1St Floor, 10Th D Main, 5Th Cross, 1St Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 011 Pan Abcpv 8123E ….Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Bengaluru. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri P. R. Mathad, C.A. Revenue By: Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri P. R. Mathad, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54F

…ption raised from the long user of the land for agricultural purpose and also the presumption arising from the entries of the Revenue records are rebutted. 6.3 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CWT vs. H. V. Mungale (1983) 32 CTR (Bom) 301 : (1984) 145 ITR 208 (Bom) held that the Hon’ble 14 Supreme Court had pointed out that the entries raised only a rebuttable presumption and some evidence would, therefore, have to be led before taxing authorities on the question of intended user of the land under consideration before the presumption could be rebutted. The Court further held that the Supreme Court ha…

Ashok C. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward -29(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2625/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Udaya B. Jakke
Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

…ercon Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, 136 ITR 881 (Guj.); ii) Mr.s Shakuntala Vedachalam & Ors., v/s ACIT, 369 ITR 558 (Mad.); iii) CIT v/s Debbie Alemao & Co., 331 ITR 59 (Bom.); iv) Chalsami Nagaratna Kumari v/s ITO, 79 taxmann.com 104 (Vizag.); v) CWT v/s H.V. Mungale, 145 ITR 208 (Bom.). 5. Shri Udaya B. Jakke, the learned Departmental Representative submitted, the very fact that the assessee was not carrying out any agricultural activity on the lands sold and held them for a period of 6 Shri Ashok C. Thakkar less than two years indicates that the assessee was holding the lands as investment. Therefore, the activities c…

Dilip Balchand Raisoni, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1153/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…y useful land and unplowed and unseeded during a growing season. He, therefore, submitted that the conclusion of Ld.CIT(A) that the land cannot be cultivated is factually incorrect. He also placed reliance on the decisions in the case of CWT Vs. H.V. Mungale 145 ITR 208 (Bom.), Lavleen Singhal Vs. DCIT (Del. ITAT) 111 TTJ 326. He, therefore, submitted the addition be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with reference to taxability of sale of land. It is assesse…

Income Tax Officer, Alwar vs. M/S Krish Home Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we set aside the order of the ld

ITA 390/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rawat (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 2(14)(iii)

…n the footing of agricultural land is not decisive. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 24. The learned counsel for the assessee mainly relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CWT v. H.V. Mungale [1984] 145 ITR 208, ratio of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Wealth-tax Reference No. 5 of 1964 decided on 4-12-1973 and the judgment of this Court in CIT v. P.C. Joshi and B.C. Joshi [1993] 202 ITR 1017 . The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee is 12 ITO vs. M/s Krish Home Pvt. Ltd. that the fact that the land…

Prashant Jaipal Reddy, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 9(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4122/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhprashant Jaipal Reddy I.T. O, Ward-9(1)-3, C/O Dhanapat Kothari & Room No. 224, Aayakar Bhavan, Accociates, Office No.50, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Wadia Building, 9-B, Vs. Cawasji Patel Street, For, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaypr7037E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (Sr. DR)
Section 1Section 112Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 48

…mission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions: (i) Shankar Dalal v/s CIT, 150 DTR 197 (Bom)(2017) (ii) CIT v/s Smt. Debbie Alemao, 331 ITR 59 (Bom)(2011) (iii) CIT v/s Minguel C. Pais, 282 ITR 616 (Bom)(2006) (iv) CWT v/s H.V. Mungale, 145 ITR 208 (Bom)(1984) (v) ACIT v/s Harsh C. Rajani, ITA No.911/M/2015-‘H’ Bench ITAT, Mum order dated 22.12.2016. (vi) Vannit Kumar Inderkumar Gupta v/s JCIT, ITA No. 2736/M/2013 ‘F’ Bench, ITAT, Mum order dated 16.12.2015. (vii) ITO v/s Ashok Shukla, 139 ITD 666 (Indore) (2012). (viii) Harish V. Milani v/s JCIT, 114 ITD 428 (Pune) (2008) (ix) Thanmel Gane…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Haresh Chunilal Rajani, Mumbai

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

ITA 911/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.B.R. Baskaran & Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.911/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2011-12 Acit-21(1) Shri Haresh Chunilal Rajani Room No.116, 1St Floor, Piramal Prop. M/S. Kem Cards, Chambers, Parel Vs 701, Ashirwang, Mumbai-400 012. 72, Pochkhanwala Rd. Worli, Mumbai-400 025. Pan: Aacpr 3308 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri-Ar राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2016 O R D E R लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य बी लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य बी बी.आर बी आर आर. . . . बा"करन आर बा"करन बा"करन के अनुसार बा"करन के अनुसार के अनुसार/ Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: के अनुसार The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2014 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-33, Mumbai For Assessment Year 2011-12. Though The Revenue Has Raised Many Grounds, All Of Them Are Directed Against A Single Issue, Viz., Whether The Ld Cit(A) Was Justified In Accepting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Land Sold By Him Was A Agricultural Land.

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri-ARFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-DR
Section 2(14)

…cultural land merely by not carrying out agricultural operations on said land, and also not merely by the intention of the purchaser of said land. The above principle was laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CWT vs. H.V. Mungale [1983] 145 ITR 208 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has elaborately explained the treatment of a land as agriculture land in following words "It is well established that in a given case agricultural land may or may not yield agricultural income. If there is land which was once cultivated or put to agricultural use but is now fallow or barren, it would not mere…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1560/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. A.B. Koli, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A
Section 133(6)Section 2(14)

…on record to show that the presumption rose from the long user of the land for agricultural purpose and also the presumption arising from the entries of the Revenue records are rebutted. 7.10 The Bombay High Court in the case of CWT v. H.V. Mungale [1984] 145 ITR 208/12 Taxman 201 held that the Supreme Court had pointed out that the entries raised only a rebuttable presumption and some evidence would, therefore, have to be led before taxing authorities on the question of intended user of the land under consideration before the presumption could be rebutted. The Court further held that the Supreme Court had c…