G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT

196 ITR 269Supreme Court of India1992#5453 most cited

What is G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT authority for?

The determination of whether land is agricultural or a capital asset is fact-specific, depending on the cumulative circumstances. The onus is on the assessee to prove the change in character to agricultural land at the time of transfer.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

G.M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT · 196 ITR 269 · capital asset · agricultural land · question of fact · onus on assessee · transfer of asset · character of land · section 2(14)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)(a)section 2(14)(iii)(b)section 96section 2(14)(iii)section 2(47)(v)jdaclarificatory amendmentsection 2(14)section 53transfer of capital assetassistant directorcancellation of registration

Judgments citing G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ssessee. This represents well-settled law, for which we refer to some judicially binding precedents, viz. CIT vs. Gemini Pictures Circuit P. Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 43 (SC); Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim vs. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC); G.M. Omer Khan vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 269 (SC); CWT vs. Officer-in-Charge (CW), Paigah [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC); Kalpetta Estates Ltd. vs. CIT [1990] 185 ITR 318 (Ker), quoting, for authority, from the last: ‘Whether a piece of land is agricultural in character or a capital asset is largely a question of fact which should be determined by the cumulative effect of fall facts and circumstan…

GEORGE STANLEY,THIRUVALLA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 587/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Telma Raju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…ssessee. This represents well-settled law, for which we refer to some judicially binding precedents, viz. CIT vs. Gemini Pictures Circuit P. Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 43 (SC); Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim vs. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC); G.M. Omer Khan vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 269 (SC); CWT vs. Officer-in-Charge (CW), Paigah [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC); Kalpetta Estates Ltd. vs. CIT [1990] 185 ITR 318 (Ker), quoting, for authority, from the last: ‘Whether a piece of land is agricultural in character or a capital asset is largely a question of fact which should be determined by the cumulative effect of fall facts and circumstan…

DCIT, COCHIN vs. SHRI M GEORGE ( MUKKADAYIL JOSEPH GEORGE), COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

…CIT v. M.J. George it was purchased. This is a character of any asset, particularly land, is liable to change over time, and which explain the rationale of clauses (a) & (b) of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. As explained by it in G.M. Omer Khan vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 269 (SC), in the context of a land situated in a Village falling under a Municipality: ‘pressure on land in the vicinity of towns being what it is, profits likely to arise in its transactions would rightly catch the ear and imagination of the taxman as a fertile area for his share of the harvest. Therefore, the said provision bears an evident contras…

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

…CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); Page 43 of 66 iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax. Aggrieved by the above assessee approached the first appellate authority. 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide page 3 of his order records the report of the Assessing Officer, dt.13.6.2008…

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153A

…, (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 50 of 78 ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax. Aggrieved by the above assessee approached the first appellate authority. 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide page 3 of his order records the report of the Assessing Officer, dt.13.6.2008…

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153A

…, (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 50 of 78 ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax. Aggrieved by the above assessee approached the first appellate authority. 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide page 3 of his order records the report of the Assessing Officer, dt.13.6.2008…

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax. Aggrieved by the above assessee approached the first appellate authority. ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 51 of 79 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide page 3 of his order records the r…

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax. Aggrieved by the above assessee approached the first appellate authority. ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 51 of 79 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide page 3 of his order records the r…

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax. Aggrieved by the above assessee approached the first appellate authority. ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 51 of 79 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide page 3 of his order records the r…

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax. Aggrieved by the above assessee approached the first appellate authority. ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 51 of 79 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide page 3 of his order records the r…

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 977/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax. Aggrieved by the above assessee approached the first appellate authority. Mr. K.P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore Page 42 of 66 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide page 3 of his order record…

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2223/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

…decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax. Aggrieved by the above assessee approached the first appellate authority. 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide page 3 of his order records the report of the Assessing Officer, dt.13.6.2008…

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2222/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

…decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC); iv) G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC); v) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Brahim v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC) On the basis of the above, the assessee was liable to pay capital gains tax. Aggrieved by the above assessee approached the first appellate authority. 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide page 3 of his order records the report of the Assessing Officer, dt.13.6.2008…

SHRI SANTHOSH MEENAKSHI TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 2841/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriv.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2841/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Shri Santhosh Meenakshi Textiles Vs Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd. Corporate Ward-3, 15, Sehuram , Sundresa Iyer Layout Coimbatore. Trichy Road, Coimbatore-641 018. Pan: Aajcs 4184M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G.Chandrababu, Addl CITFor Respondent: 22.02.2021

…subject is the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of CWT Vs Officer-in-charge (court of wards), Paigah (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC). There have 7 been further clarifications on the subject from the Apex Court in G M Omer Khan Vs. AddI. CIT (1992 ) 196 ITR 269 (SC) and Smt. Sarifabibi Mohammed IbrahimVs CIT(1993) 204 ITR 631(SC). In these cases Apex Court had laid down following tests to treat a land as agricultural or non agricultural. 1] The proximity of the and to building and building sites. 2) Sole of land for non agricultural purposes. 3) Sale of land by a measure with reference to square yards a…

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)

…d that the appellant has not earned in agricultural income either in this year or in the earlier years which alone proves that the land is not an agricultural land. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M. Omer Khan v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC), this land can otherwise also not to be considered as agricultural income (within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961) Accordingly it treated the proceeds of agricultural sale as liable for capital gains and treated the sum of Rs.1,61,25,000/- as capital gains. 4.3.2 In the grounds of appeal, the appeal states that the…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5460/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…aken into account for the purpose of section 2(14)(iii)(a) to determine, whether property in the particular area is exigible to capital gains. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Omerkhan vs. Addl. CIT 196 ITR 269 in which also similarly held that it is the population of the Municipality which is so to be taken into account for the purpose of Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and not population of any area within the Municipality. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Deep Chand 257 ITR 756 in which it was held that c…

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5348/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…aken into account for the purpose of section 2(14)(iii)(a) to determine, whether property in the particular area is exigible to capital gains. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Omerkhan vs. Addl. CIT 196 ITR 269 in which also similarly held that it is the population of the Municipality which is so to be taken into account for the purpose of Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and not population of any area within the Municipality. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Deep Chand 257 ITR 756 in which it was held that c…

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4136/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…aken into account for the purpose of section 2(14)(iii)(a) to determine, whether property in the particular area is exigible to capital gains. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Omerkhan vs. Addl. CIT 196 ITR 269 in which also similarly held that it is the population of the Municipality which is so to be taken into account for the purpose of Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and not population of any area within the Municipality. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Deep Chand 257 ITR 756 in which it was held that c…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2802/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…aken into account for the purpose of section 2(14)(iii)(a) to determine, whether property in the particular area is exigible to capital gains. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Omerkhan vs. Addl. CIT 196 ITR 269 in which also similarly held that it is the population of the Municipality which is so to be taken into account for the purpose of Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and not population of any area within the Municipality. The learned D.R. also relied upon Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Deep Chand 257 ITR 756 in which it was held that c…

GOVINDARAJAN (HUF),PONDICHERRY vs. ITO WARD 1, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1877/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1877/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Govindarajan (Huf), Income Tax Officer, No. 14, V.O.C Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Vs. Ward -1, Puducherry 605 011. Puducherry.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Selvam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 263(2)

…order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue de novo keeping in view of our above observations as well as decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (196 ITR 269) after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.” :-3-: 3. Complying with the directions of the Hon’ble ITAT, the AO examined the issue by deputing his inspector to verify the facts. The inspector furnished the report dated 28.05.2015, wherein, inter alia, he…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

G. M. Omer Khan v. Addl. CIT (196 ITR 269) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax