CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigha

105 ITR 133Supreme Court of India1976#1208 most cited

What is CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigha authority for?

The character of land as agricultural land or a capital asset is a question of fact determined by the cumulative effect of all circumstances. Classification in revenue records alone is not conclusive evidence of agricultural use; actual agricultural operations must be proven.

93

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CWT v. Officer-in-Charge · Paigha · 105 ITR 133 · agricultural land definition · capital asset transfer · Section 2(14)(iii) · Section 54B · revenue records evidentiary value · onus of proof for agricultural land · actual agricultural operations

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)(a)section 2(14)(iii)(b)section 115adsection 2(14)(iii)section 2(1a)section 63section 2(1)section 96section 60section 2(13)section 2(14)transfer of capital asset

Judgments citing CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigha

ITO, Ncw - 1 (5), Chennai vs. Ms. Esther Jasper, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2856/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Ms. Vijaya Prabha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. Nithya Sankaran, C.A
Section 143(3)

…8 delivered on 11.10.2018. vii. The learned CIT(A) erred considering the circumstances of the case, on granting relief against the rationale of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT Vs. Officer in Charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) – 105 ITR 133 (SC). viii. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the lands transacted are Agricultural lands, when the transaction of the assessee fails in majority of the tests as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarifa Bibi Mohammad Ibrahim & others (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC). 4. It was submitted by the learned Departmental Representative…

ITO, Ncw - 1 (5), Chennai vs. Ms. Esther Jasper, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2855/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Ms. Vijaya Prabha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. Nithya Sankaran, C.A
Section 143(3)

…8 delivered on 11.10.2018. vii. The learned CIT(A) erred considering the circumstances of the case, on granting relief against the rationale of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT Vs. Officer in Charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) – 105 ITR 133 (SC). viii. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the lands transacted are Agricultural lands, when the transaction of the assessee fails in majority of the tests as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarifa Bibi Mohammad Ibrahim & others (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC). 4. It was submitted by the learned Departmental Representative…

Anil Kumar Nuwal, Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 290/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainanil Kumar Nuwal, Vs A.C.I.T., 9, Main Sector, Shastri Circle- Bhilwara. Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan- 311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aavpn 4375 L

For Appellant: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble
Section 143(3)Section 54B

…dencing cultivation of subabul crop on the land”. 17 ITA 290/Johd/2019 Anil Kr Nuwal Vs ACIT 5. Going Further, the Hon’ble Tribunal had also considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) (1976) 105 ITR 133wherein the Apex Court held that : "The determination of the character of the land, according to the purpose for which it is meant or set apart and can be used, is a matter which ought to be determined on the facts of each particular case. What is really required to be shown is the connection with an agricultural purpose and user and not the mere…

Mala Dhingra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4728/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimala Dhingra, Acit, 85 – Golf Links, Vs. Central Circle – 8, New Delhi – 110 003. New Delhi. Pan : Aadpd6808Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishore, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas [CIT]–DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…all back upon the general sense in which they have been understood in common parlance. What constitutes agriculture has long since been settled in CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC) and in CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of wards) [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC). The term 'agriculture' is understood as comprising within its scope the basic as well as subsequent operations in the process of agriculture and the raising on the lands of products which have some utility either for consumption for trade and commerce, it will be seen that the term 'agriculture' receives a wider interpretation both in regar…

ITO, W-4, Panchkula vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi, Panchkula

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

For Appellant: Shri. A.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore, CI TDR
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…as Narainji Vs. Development Officer, AIR 1929 PC 163 • Tea Estates India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax • CIT Vs. Gemini Pictures, 220 ITR 43 • Sarifabibi’s Case [ 1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC) • CWT Vs. Officer-in Charge (Court of Wards), Paigah [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC) • T. Sarojini Devi V. Sri Kristna, AIR 1944 Mad 401 • CIT Vs. V.A. Trivedi [1988] 172 ITR 95 • CIT Vs. Siddharth J. Desai [1981] 139 ITR 628 9. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and furnished the written submissions on 24/11/2016 the relevant portion of which had been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.5…

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)

…self has to be taken into consideration. The question whether a particular land is agricultural land was first considered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Officer in Charge (Court of Wards) 105 ITR 133. The definition of agricultural land within the meaning of Section 2(e) of Wealth Tax Act was considered and it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that to determine the character of land according to the purpose for which it is meant or set apart and can be used, is a matter which ought to be determined on the facts of each particular case…

ITO WD 3(4), Kalyan vs. Samsuddin Ahmed Saiyed, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3060/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, Samsuddin Ahmed Ward 3(4), 2Nd Floor, Rani Saiyed, 45/11, Zuneda Vs. Mansion, Murbad Road, Manzil, Old Fish Market, Kalyan (W)-421301. Kalyan (W). Pan No. Anmps6259A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sunil R. Talreja, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil R. Talreja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 54B

…cogent evidence to support his contention that the land concerned was agricultural land and the revenue wants to controvert such contention, the revenue has to lead convincing evidence on its point as held in CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards), (1976) 105 ITR 133, 143 (SC); CIT v. Fagoomal Lakshmichand, (1978)112 ITR 9,11 (Ker.). In the instant case, the revenue has failed to lead convincing evidence on its points. In view of the above facts, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/05/2018. (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M…

Bhinmal Contractors Property & Land Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 7207/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 80Section 80I

…to the context, the language of a statute should be interpreted according to the plain dictionary meaning of the terms used therein". Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Officer-In- Charge (Court of Wards) [1976]105 ITR 133 in which it was held that the ordinary dictionary. meaning of a word cannot be disregarded. The said word has been defined in Oxford Advanced Leader's Dictionary. M/s. Bhinmal Contractors Property & Land Developers P. Ltd 16. According to this dictionary, "developer" is a person or company that designs and creates new products, whereas "contract…

Hari Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO, Alwar

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessees are allowed on the

ITA 835/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Apr 2018AY 2008-09
Section 2(14)

…for agricultural purposes but is not shown as agricultural in the Revenue records. In the circumstances it is pleaded that what is important is the use of the land and not the record of it. In the matter of CWT V/s officers in charge, (Court of wards) (1976) 105 ITR 133(SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the entries in the revenue records is a material evidence to show the nature of the land but it is not conclusive. Further evidence is required to show the lands in question at the material time have not lost the character of agriculture land. The onus is on the assessee to establish the nature of the land. Whe…

Manfool Gurjar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Alwar

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessees are allowed on the

ITA 834/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Apr 2018AY 2008-09
Section 2(14)

…for agricultural purposes but is not shown as agricultural in the Revenue records. In the circumstances it is pleaded that what is important is the use of the land and not the record of it. In the matter of CWT V/s officers in charge, (Court of wards) (1976) 105 ITR 133(SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the entries in the revenue records is a material evidence to show the nature of the land but it is not conclusive. Further evidence is required to show the lands in question at the material time have not lost the character of agriculture land. The onus is on the assessee to establish the nature of the land. Whe…

Sukhdai W/O Late Sh. Narayan Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO, Alwar

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessees are allowed on the

ITA 833/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Apr 2018AY 2008-09
Section 2(14)

…for agricultural purposes but is not shown as agricultural in the Revenue records. In the circumstances it is pleaded that what is important is the use of the land and not the record of it. In the matter of CWT V/s officers in charge, (Court of wards) (1976) 105 ITR 133(SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the entries in the revenue records is a material evidence to show the nature of the land but it is not conclusive. Further evidence is required to show the lands in question at the material time have not lost the character of agriculture land. The onus is on the assessee to establish the nature of the land. Whe…

Jagat Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO, Alwar

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessees are allowed on the

ITA 837/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Apr 2018AY 2008-09
Section 2(14)

…for agricultural purposes but is not shown as agricultural in the Revenue records. In the circumstances it is pleaded that what is important is the use of the land and not the record of it. In the matter of CWT V/s officers in charge, (Court of wards) (1976) 105 ITR 133(SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the entries in the revenue records is a material evidence to show the nature of the land but it is not conclusive. Further evidence is required to show the lands in question at the material time have not lost the character of agriculture land. The onus is on the assessee to establish the nature of the land. Whe…

Shyam Lal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Alwar

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessees are allowed on the

ITA 836/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Apr 2018AY 2008-09
Section 2(14)

…for agricultural purposes but is not shown as agricultural in the Revenue records. In the circumstances it is pleaded that what is important is the use of the land and not the record of it. In the matter of CWT V/s officers in charge, (Court of wards) (1976) 105 ITR 133(SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the entries in the revenue records is a material evidence to show the nature of the land but it is not conclusive. Further evidence is required to show the lands in question at the material time have not lost the character of agriculture land. The onus is on the assessee to establish the nature of the land. Whe…

Shri Mamchand Gurjar, Alwar vs. ITO, Alwar

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessees are allowed on the

ITA 758/JPR/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Apr 2018AY 2008-09
Section 2(14)

…for agricultural purposes but is not shown as agricultural in the Revenue records. In the circumstances it is pleaded that what is important is the use of the land and not the record of it. In the matter of CWT V/s officers in charge, (Court of wards) (1976) 105 ITR 133(SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the entries in the revenue records is a material evidence to show the nature of the land but it is not conclusive. Further evidence is required to show the lands in question at the material time have not lost the character of agriculture land. The onus is on the assessee to establish the nature of the land. Whe…

Shri T.N. Rajamohan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assesse’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2540/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…did not cooperate in the remand proceedings, on examination of facts and circumstances of this case from the available material, considering various case laws viz the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sarifabibi and Court of Wards 204 ITR 631(SC) & 105 ITR 133(SC) , 136 ITR 621(Guj) , Gopal C Sharma Vs CIT 209 ITR 946 etc, the AO reported that the impugned land is not an agricultural land, the assessee has not brought any evidence to prove the claim of expenditure on development of land either during the assessment or during the remand proceedings , he made a round about claim by an after- thought wi…

K.Shanthi, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

ITA 433/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT
Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 54B

…entiality of the land was not a relevant factor for deciding the nature of the land. For taking this view, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CWT vs. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigah, 105 ITR 133. As per the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the land which was barren, though it was capable for agricultural use could not be considered as agricultural land unless it was subject to agricultural operations. Based on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siddharth J. Desai 139 ITR 628, ld. Commissioner of I…

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Chagarlamudi Vijaya Kumari

ITTA/517/2017HC Telangana30 Oct 2017

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

ITO, Salem vs. The Deputy Cheif Engineer (Construction), Salem

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

ITA 835/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 835/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, The Deputy Chief Engineer Tds Ward, Vs. (Construction), Salem. Salem Railway Division, Salem. [Tan:Ched05218-D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Asish Tripathi, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. G. Vardhini Karthik, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem Dated 23.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Tds Is Not Deductible Under Section 194La Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] By Treating The Impugned Land As Agricultural Land.

For Appellant: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. G. Vardhini Karthik, Advocate
Section 194LSection 2Section 2(114)(III)Section 201Section 201(1)

…der section 194LA of the Act. 6. Whether the land in question used for agricultural purpose or not is not the material for determining the question as to whether the land was agricultural land or not. In the case of CIT Vs Officer-in-charge [Court of Wards] (105 ITR 133), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that agricultural land must be a land which could be said to be either actually used or ordinarily used or meant to be used for agricultural purposes, and determination of the character of land, according to the purpose for which it was meant or set apart and can be used, is a matter of which 6 I.T.A. No. 835/M/17 ha…

D.Sivagama Sundari, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 451/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 451/Mds/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. D. Sivagama Sundari, The Income Tax Officer, 32, Boag Road, T. Nagar, V. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aacps4247H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Jagadisan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.M. Bhusari,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017

For Appellant: Shri V. Jagadisan, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.M. Bhusari,CIT

…Rajalakshmi, ITA No.2807/Mds/2014 dated 28.08.2015. The Ld. representative also placed reliance on various 4 I.T.A. No. 451/Mds/2017 judgments of the various High Courts including the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in CWT vs. Officer In charge, (1976) 105 ITR 133. 3. Shri M.M. Bhusari, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that no doubt, the land in question was classified as wet land by the State Government. The Tahsildar clarified that no crop was cultivated from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2007. The Ld.AO also found that the land was referred as puncture land which means, the land is un-cultivatable.…

T. Raghavendra Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1058/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri. Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri. L. Bharath, CA
Section 143(3)Section 148

…the case of CIT Vs. Vajulal Chunilal 120 ITR 21 (Gujarat) after referring to its earlier decision in the case of Smt. Chandravati Atmaram 114 ITR 302 (Guj.) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of CWT V. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards) 105 ITR 133 held that the land does not seem to be agricultural land merely because the permission is granted for non-agricultural use and the land would continue to be agricultural land until the land is put to non-agricultural use by the purchaser himself. The relevant judgment is extracted below: “The legal position as to when land can be said to be agr…