Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT

209 ITR 946High Court1994#5120 most cited

What is Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT authority for?

The potential for non-agricultural use or the purchaser's intention does not alter the agricultural character of land for capital gains purposes if it was agricultural at the time of sale and prior use. Market conditions leading to a high price do not change the essential nature of the land.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT · agricultural land · capital asset · section 2(14)(iii) · period of holding · transfer of capital asset · potential use · market value

Also reported as

72 Taxmann 353

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(14)Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)(b)section 2(14)(iii)(a)section 2(13)section 2(14)(iii)section 63section 54bsection 2(14)period of holdingsection 65transfer of capital assetput to usesection 139(4)

Judgments citing Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT

NAROTTAM ATMARAM WARDE,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

ITA 3139/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3139/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- S Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. Pan: Abypw5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ronak Jain Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 08.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 13.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Leamed Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Interpreting Law & Facts In Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Prosecution

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 250(6)

…ltural. This assumption is unsustainable in law. 2.3 Even if the land was later used for development, the law is settled that what matters is the character of land on the date of transfer, not future use. Honourable Bombay High Court in Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT 209 ITR 946 held that Potential non-agricultural use or purchaser's intention does not change agricultural character. 2.4 Section 2(14)(iii) excludes "Agricultural land in India" (subject to distance conditions) There is no exclusion for grass land, no requirement of crop rotation, no requirement of food grains. Once land is agricultural and rural it is out…

MOHAMED MUSTHAFA KUNNATH CHENGAANA,CALICUT vs. ITO,WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 671/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.P.Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 18Section 2(14)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member ITA No.671/Coch/2024 :Asst.Year 2014-2015 Sri.Mohamed Musthafa Kunnath The Income Tax Officer Chengaana, v. Ward – 2(3) RKP-XII/682, Parakkot Pottayil Kozhikode. House, Feroke, Calicut – 673 631 PAN : AJNPC9794P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.P.Raghunathan, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing : 24.03.2025 Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee co-operati…

ELAVANCHALIL ABDUL BASHEER,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 310/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

…athingal Faisal Rahman [2019] 416 ITR 311, wherein the Hon'ble High Court quoted the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Manila Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 946 wherein it is observed that the potential value of the property of nonagricultural consideration and large price, obtained by reason of the market conditions would not detract from the essential nature of the land at the time of the sale and the use to which it was put, prior to sale. 13. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M.S. Sreeniv…

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das &
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 40

…athingal Faisal Rahman [2019] 416 ITR 311, wherein the Hon'ble High Court quoted the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Manila Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 946 wherein it is observed that the potential value of the property of nonagricultural consideration and large price, obtained by reason of the market conditions would not detract from the essential nature of the land at the time of the sale and the use to which it was put, prior to sale. 25. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M.S. Sreeniv…

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

…ral land falls within the ambit of revenue derived from land and, therefore, has to be treated as agricultural income in which event it has to be considered for rate purposes only. 16. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 946/72 Taxman 353, on the other hand, observed that the expression ‘agricultural land’ is not defined in the Income Tax Act and, going by the intention of the Legislature, i.e. encouraging cultivation, sale of agricultural land gives rise to capital gains. It may be noticed that the court was not concerned with the case of agricultural land situated…

MR DNYANESHWAR BABURAO KATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 432/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.432/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Pune. Kathe, Janori Dhawa, 10Th Mail Road, Dindori, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Bbppk3199D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit(A) Has Erred & Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.31,58,740/- By Treating The Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In The Saving Bank Account Of Dena Bank As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Cash Deposited In The Bank Was Out Of Agriculture Sale Proceeds. The Appellant Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 148Section 3Section 50CSection 54F

…n the orders passed by subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. Ld. DR relied on the following case laws in support of their contentions :- (i) Abhijit Subhas Gaikwad vs. DCIT, 60 taxmann.com 259 (Pune – Trib.). (ii) Gopal C. Sharma vs. CIT, 209 ITR 946 (Bombay). 10 (iii) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. CIT, 204 ITR 631 (SC). (iv) CIT vs. V.A. Trivedi, 172 ITR 95 (Bombay). (v) CIT vs. Siddharth J. Desai, 139 ITR 628 (Gujarat). 10. We have heard Ld. Counsel from both the sides and perused the material available on record including additional evidences furnished by the assessee and case laws r…

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

…ential non- agricultural value of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 9.12. We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 946/72 Taxman 353(Bom), in which, the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim (supra) was referred to and relied, amongst other cases. In this case, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has stated that the profit motive of the assessee selling the land without anything more by itself can never be decisive for determination of the issue as to w…

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

…alue of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 6.6. We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma vs. CIT (1994) 116 CTR (Bom) 377 : (1994) 209 ITR 946 (Bom), in which, the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. CIT (supra) was referred to and relied, amongst other cases. In this case, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has stated that the profit motive of the assessee selling the land without anything more by itself can never be decisive for determination of the issue as to…

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

…ential non- agricultural value of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 9.12. We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 946/72 Taxman 353(Bom), in which, the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim (supra) was referred to and relied, amongst other cases. In this case, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has stated that the profit motive of the assessee selling the land without anything more by itself can never be decisive for determination of the issue as to w…

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

…ential non- agricultural value of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 9.12. We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 946/72 Taxman 353(Bom), in which, the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim (supra) was referred to and relied, amongst other cases. In this case, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has stated that the profit motive of the assessee selling the land without anything more by itself can never be decisive for determination of the issue as to w…

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

…ential non- agricultural value of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 9.12. We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 946/72 Taxman 353(Bom), in which, the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim (supra) was referred to and relied, amongst other cases. In this case, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has stated that the profit motive of the assessee selling the land without anything more by itself can never be decisive for determination of the issue as to w…

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

…ential non- agricultural value of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 9.12. We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 946/72 Taxman 353(Bom), in which, the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim (supra) was referred to and relied, amongst other cases. In this case, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has stated that the profit motive of the assessee selling the land without anything more by itself can never be decisive for determination of the issue as to w…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. RENAISSANCE CULTIVATION LLP,, PUNE

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

ITA 1416/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1416/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Renaissance Pune. Cultivation Llp, Pastakiya House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 Pan : Aaofr7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Entire Facts Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…d that it is business transactions and, accordingly, assessed to tax as business income of Rs.86,41,95,095/- :- (i) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim & Others vs. CIT, 204 ITR 631 (SC). (ii) CIT vs. V.A. Trivedi, 172 ITR 95 (Bom.). (iii) Gopal C. Sharma vs. CIT, 209 ITR 946 (Bom.). 7 Abhijit Gaikwad, Shubhash Gaikwad and Ajit Gaikwad vs. DCIT, Central 2(1), Pune, ITA No.699, 700 & 701/PN/2013 (ITAT Pune). (v) Jitendra Sonigara vs. ACIT, Cir-9, Pune, ITA No.849/PN/2012 (ITAT Pune). (vi) Hanmantram Murlidhar & Company Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panwel, ITA No.515/PN/2012, (ITAT Pune). 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order…

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)

…alue of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 49. We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma vs. CIT (1994) 116 CTR (Bom) 377 : (1994) 209 ITR 946 (Bom), in which, the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. CIT (supra) was referred to and relied, amongst other cases. In this case, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has stated that the profit motive of the assessee selling the land without anything Vinod Parasmal Jain 16 more by itself can never be decisive for determin…

SMT. NIMA SOMABHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1301/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1301/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2012 Smt. Nima Somabhai Patel, Income-Tax Officer, 13, Shubhash Society, Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), B/H. Ishwar Bhuvan, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Acmpp1832B

For Appellant: Shri Karan Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms Pooja Parekh, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1301/AHD/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2012 Smt. Nima Somabhai Patel, Income-tax Officer, 13, Shubhash Society, Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), B/h. Ishwar Bhuvan, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. PAN: ACMPP1832B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Karan Shah, A.R Revenue by : Ms Pooja Parekh, Sr.D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/03/2021 घोषणा क" तारी…

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

…value of the land for which a purchaser may be prepared to pay a large price would not detract from its character as agricultural land on the relevant date of sale. 6.5 We may also refer to the case of Gopal C. Sharma vs. CIT (1994) 116 CTR (Bom) 377 : (1994) 209 ITR 946 (Bom), in which, the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. CIT (supra) was referred to and relied, amongst 15 other cases. In this case, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has stated that the price paid is not decisive to say whether the land is agricultural or not. The argument advanced by the assessee is that the lands…

RAVINDRA JOMA BHAGAT,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1246/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Pramod Kumar Parida and Jitendra NaharFor Respondent: Smt. Amrita Mishra and Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 133A

…traordinary profits earned by the assessee on sale of land cannot determine the nature of transaction. In support of his contentions, ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal C. Sharma Vs. CIT reported as (1994) 209 ITR 946 (Bom). 6.3 The ld. AR further contended that the authorities below in an arbitrary and unjustified manner have rejected the expenditure incurred by the assessee on transfer of land. The AO in the assessment order has time and again mentioned that the assessee has not provided requisite details, whereas, the assessee has furnished all the details…

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)

…nor to be cultivated in future coupled with the factors of its locations and prices established that the land was not an agricultural land when it was sold. This issue was again considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal C Sharma Vs CIT 209 ITR 946 and by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has observed and held in para 13, 24 to 26 as under: 11 ITO vs. M/s Krish Home Pvt. Ltd. “13. The expression 'agricultural land' is not defined under the Act. The question as to whether…

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

…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 with a motive of depriving the Revenue of its legitimate taxes…

BHIMRAO JANU JADHAV,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 4 PANVEL, NEW PANVEL

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 390/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm M/S. Bhimrao Janu Jadhav Vs. Ito Wd 4 Panvel 205, Highway Commerce Centre, Triffed Tower 2Nd Floor, L Sec-17 Jn Of I.B. Patel Road, W.E. Highway Behind H.P. Petrol Pump Opp. Khanda Colony Goregaon (E), New Panvel -410 206 Mumbai – 400 063

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

…ITA No.390/M/2016 Bhimrao Janu Jadhav IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM M/S. Bhimrao Janu Jadhav Vs. ITO WD 4 Panvel 205, Highway Commerce Centre, Triffed Tower 2nd Floor, L Sec-17 JN of I.B. Patel Road, W.E. Highway Behind H.P. Petrol Pump Opp. Khanda Colony Goregaon (E), New Panvel -410 206 Mumbai – 400 063 PAN/GIR No.AJNPJ2679J Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri V.H. Jariwala Revenue by Shri Suman Kumar Date of Hearing 13/11/2017 Date of Pronouncement 07/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, 1. This is a…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT (209 ITR 946) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax