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

T. Prasanna Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1048/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…

T. Suresh Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1047/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…

D. Dasappa, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1046/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…

Oricon Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not admitted

ITA 7387/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Orion Enterprises, Acit, Flat No.602B, Foreshore Central Circle-20, बनाम/ Apts, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai Vs. Santacruz West, Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aabfo0229Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Subhacham Ram Cit-Dr

Section 69ASection 80H

…se of discretion. We are not able to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has applied wrong principles of law or that it has relied upon incorrect principles of law regulating the controversy in issue (refer [1976] 105 ITR 133). We are also not in a position to agree with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the afore-given three reasons amount to palpably erroneous error of law in exercise of discretion by the authorities concerned. On the contrary, we have already held that the reasons stated for declining the reference are well in consonance with…

Smt.Anusuyamma, Bangalore vs. ITO-Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2227/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarsmt.Anusuyamma, # 8/1, Beml Township, Gm Palya, New Thippasandra Post, Bengaluru-560075. … Appellant Pan:Aiopa 0312 D Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…e could not discharge the onus of proving agricultural activities was carried on before the sale goes to prove that the character of the land is nothing but non-agricultural. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT vs. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards) (105 ITR 133) held that mere potential or capable of being used as agricultural is not enough to hold it as agricultural land. The appellant had not adduced any evidence to show that agricultural operations are actually carried on the land, land had been assessed to revenue or not, classification of land in the revenue record. The Hon’ble Page 16 of 20 Suprem…

Mohd Gafuruddin F. Siddique, Mumbai vs. CIT 15, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed as not admitted

ITA 79/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2006-07 Mohd. Gafuruddin F. Siddiqui, Cit-15, Flat No.1, Gr. Flr, Saadath Mumbai बनाम/ Manzil, 35, Bora St. Null Vs. Bazar, Behind Safai Masjid, Mumbai-400003 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aapps1966C

Section 143(3)Section 263

…se of discretion. We are not able to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has applied wrong principles of law or that it has relied upon incorrect principles of law regulating the controversy in issue (refer [1976] 105 ITR 133). We are also not in a position to agree with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the afore-given three reasons amount to palpably erroneous error of law in exercise of discretion by the authorities concerned. On the contrary, we have already held that the reasons stated for declining the reference are well in consonance with…

DCIT, Chennai vs. S.Amar Narayana Reddy, Chennai

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

ITA 1263/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1263/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri S. Amar Narayana Reddy, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1), Vs. Flat No.912, 19-8-150, Sai Residency, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 121, Bairagipatteda, Tirupati [Presently At A6, M.G. Road, 7Th Floor, Chennai 34. No. 40, 2Nd Main Road, Kasturbai Nagar, Adayar, Chennai. [Pan:Aieps6384D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. B. Nischal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Anita Sumanth, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 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), Tirupati, Dated 23.03.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. In This Appeal, The Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Treating The Amount Of ₹.3,04,01,161/-, Which Is The Margin/Gains To The Assessee On Sale Of Land As Business Is Not Sustainable. Further, The 2

For Appellant: Dr. B. Nischal, JCITFor Respondent: Dr. Anita Sumanth, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…to be seen is whether such land is capable of agricultural operation being carried on. 5.6.2 Potential of non-agricultural use is not material for determining the question whether the land was agricultural land or not. In the case of CIT Vs Officer-in-charge (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 is meant or set apart and can be used, is a matter of which have to be determined on th…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. B. Sudhakar Pai, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 708/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesan, C.A
Section 2(14)

…tion operations within three days of the purchase. What is the inference that flows from a cumulative consideration of all the aforesaid contending facts? This question has to be answered keeping in mind the criteria evolved in the Begumpet Palace case (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC) se5t out herein before. In our opinion, the entering into the agreement to sell the land for housing purposes, the applying and obtaining the permission to sell the land for non-agricultural purposes under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and its s ale soon thereafter and the fact that the land was not cultivated f…

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)

…which the land was sold 13. and whether the owner would have ever sold the land valuing it as a property yielding agricultural produce on the basis of its yield?" 7.8 A reference could be made to the case of CWT v. Officer-in- charge (Court of wards) [1976] 105 ITR 133(SC) wherein the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court stated that the term 'agriculture' and 'agricultural purpose' was not defined in the Indian IT Act and that we must necessarily fall back upon the general sense in which they have been understood in common parlance. The Supreme Court has observed that the term 'agriculture' is thus unders…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

ITTA/298/2015HC Telangana05 Nov 2015

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

The Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd

ITTA/175/2015HC Telangana08 Oct 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

ITTA/176/2015HC Telangana08 Oct 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

DCIT, Chennai vs. P.R.Ramasamy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1271/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1271/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Philip George. Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 2(14)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1271/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of Shri P.R. Ramasamy, Income Tax, v. No.18, L.G.N. Street, Business Circle VII, Mount Road, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AABPR 3090 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT ""यथ" क" ओर स…