Harniks Park (P) Ltd. v. ITO

62 SOT 15Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#7968 most cited

What is Harniks Park (P) Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Where land is agricultural land, recognized as such in revenue records, and the owner conducts agricultural operations on it, the transfer of such land is not a transfer of a capital asset, and the income derived is not taxable as business income.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Harniks Park (P) Ltd. v. ITO · 62 SOT 15 · agricultural land · capital asset · section 2(14)(iii) · business income · agricultural operations · revenue records · transfer of land

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 53transfer of capital assetsection 2(14)assistant directorcancellation of registration

Judgments citing Harniks Park (P) Ltd. v. ITO

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment 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 PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against order da…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2006-07 Shri M. Thimmegowda, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner # F-113, Central Chambers, of Income Tax, 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Central Circle 1(3), Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 009. PAN: ACYPT 2499N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20.04.2022 O R D E R Pe…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2006-07 Shri M. Thimmegowda, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner # F-113, Central Chambers, of Income Tax, 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Central Circle 1(3), Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 009. PAN: ACYPT 2499N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20.04.2022 O R D E R Pe…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2006-07 to 2009-10 Late Smt. K. Leelavathy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner By L/R Shri M. Thimmegowda, of Income Tax, # F-113, Central Chambers, Central Circle 1(3), 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Bengaluru. Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560 009. PAN: ABRPL 1523B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronounceme…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2006-07 to 2009-10 Late Smt. K. Leelavathy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner By L/R Shri M. Thimmegowda, of Income Tax, # F-113, Central Chambers, Central Circle 1(3), 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Bengaluru. Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560 009. PAN: ABRPL 1523B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronounceme…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2006-07 to 2009-10 Late Smt. K. Leelavathy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner By L/R Shri M. Thimmegowda, of Income Tax, # F-113, Central Chambers, Central Circle 1(3), 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Bengaluru. Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560 009. PAN: ABRPL 1523B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronounceme…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2006-07 to 2009-10 Late Smt. K. Leelavathy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner By L/R Shri M. Thimmegowda, of Income Tax, # F-113, Central Chambers, Central Circle 1(3), 2-C & D, 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Bengaluru. Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560 009. PAN: ABRPL 1523B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L, CA Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.03.2022 Date of Pronounceme…

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)

…e Act and assessee is engaged in agricultural operations in such land and also being specific agricultural land in the revenue records, transfer of such land cannot be considered as a transfer of capital asset. 26. In the case of Harniks Park (P) Ltd. v. ITO (62 SOT 15)(Hyd) the Tribunal held that where land which does not fall under provisions of section 2(14)(iii) and an assessee who is engaged in agricultural operations in agricultural land and also being specified as agricultural land in revenue records, transfers such agricultural land as it is, in such circumstances, such transfer cannot be considered as a…

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

…me arising thereform is exempt from tax. In support of these contentions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi, 404 ITR 173 (Mad), Tulla Veerender v. Addl. CIT, 160 TTJ 435 (Hyd) and Harniks Parks P. Ltd. v. ITO, 62 SOT 15 (Hyd). 15. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that there was no evidence filed by the assessee to suggest that there was actual cultivation of land during these assessment years. Further it was submitted that the land ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 Page 29 of 82 used for agricultural purpose was situated at Manchanayakanahalli, whereas the la…

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

…me arising thereform is exempt from tax. In support of these contentions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi, 404 ITR 173 (Mad), Tulla Veerender v. Addl. CIT, 160 TTJ 435 (Hyd) and Harniks Parks P. Ltd. v. ITO, 62 SOT 15 (Hyd). 15. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that there was no evidence filed by the assessee to suggest that there was actual cultivation of land during these assessment years. Further it was submitted that the land ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 Page 29 of 82 used for agricultural purpose was situated at Manchanayakanahalli, whereas the la…

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)

…the said transaction would be taxable as ‘business income’ citing the case of Constructions Co. vs. ITO, Ward 4(2) [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad-Trib). Ld. AR cited another case of Hyderabad ITAT i.e. of Harnkis Park (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 2(2) (2014) 62 SOT 15, wherein it was held that the profit earned on sale of a land wherein agricultural operations were being carried out and which was also classified as agricultural land in revenue records, is agricultural income of the assessee. It is also observed that the lands were sold by the assessee, as it is, since no plotting was done, no development activi…

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)

…the said transaction would be taxable as ‘business income’ citing the case of Constructions Co. vs. ITO, Ward 4(2) [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad-Trib). Ld. AR cited another case of Hyderabad ITAT i.e. of Harnkis Park (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 2(2) (2014) 62 SOT 15, wherein it was held that the profit earned on sale of a land wherein agricultural operations were being carried out and which was also classified as agricultural land in revenue records, is agricultural income of the assessee. It is also observed that the lands were sold by the assessee, as it is, since no plotting was done, no development activi…

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)

…the said transaction would be taxable as ‘business income’ citing the case of Constructions Co. vs. ITO, Ward 4(2) [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad-Trib). Ld. AR cited another case of Hyderabad ITAT i.e. of Harnkis Park (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 2(2) (2014) 62 SOT 15, wherein it was held that the profit earned on sale of a land wherein agricultural operations were being carried out and which was also classified as agricultural land in revenue records, is agricultural income of the assessee. It is also observed that the lands were sold by the assessee, as it is, since no plotting was done, no development activi…

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)

…the said transaction would be taxable as ‘business income’ citing the case of Constructions Co. vs. ITO, Ward 4(2) [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad-Trib). Ld. AR cited another case of Hyderabad ITAT i.e. of Harnkis Park (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 2(2) (2014) 62 SOT 15, wherein it was held that the profit earned on sale of a land wherein agricultural operations were being carried out and which was also classified as agricultural land in revenue records, is agricultural income of the assessee. It is also observed that the lands were sold by the assessee, as it is, since no plotting was done, no development activi…

Harniks Park (P) Ltd. v. ITO (62 SOT 15) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax