Himatlal Govindji v. CWT

106 ITR 658High Court1977#18718 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing Himatlal Govindji v. CWT

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

…ral years, crops are being grown, plantations of Khajura trees, Chiku trees and other crops were being reared and nurtured on the land in question, and it cannot be said that from 1929 to 1966 it was a temporary arrangement. In Himatlal Govindji v. CWT [1977] 106 ITR 658 (Guj.) a plot of land which was already converted to non-agricultural use for the purpose of the Land Revenue Code was being cultivated pending the finalisation of the transaction of sale. In the instant case, the land was put to agricultural use right till the date of sale and was being used for agricultural purposes. Crops were being grown, gra…

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

…ral years, crops are being grown, plantations of Khajura trees, Chiku trees and other crops were being reared and nurtured on the land in question, and it cannot be said that from 1929 to 1966 it was a temporary arrangement. In Himatlal Govindji v. CWT [1977] 106 ITR 658 (Guj.) a plot of land which was already converted to non-agricultural use for the purpose of the Land Revenue Code was being cultivated pending the finalisation of the transaction of sale. In the instant case, the land was put to agricultural use right till the date of sale and was being used for agricultural purposes. Crops were being grown, gra…

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

…ral years, crops are being grown, plantations of Khajura trees, Chiku trees and other crops were being reared and nurtured on the land in question, and it cannot be said that from 1929 to 1966 it was a temporary arrangement. In Himatlal Govindji v. CWT [1977] 106 ITR 658 (Guj.) a plot of land which was already converted to non-agricultural use for the purpose of the Land Revenue Code was being cultivated pending the finalisation of the transaction of sale. In the instant case, the land was put to agricultural use right till the date of sale and was being used for agricultural purposes. Crops were being grown, gra…

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

…ral years, crops are being grown, plantations of Khajura trees, Chiku trees and other crops were being reared and nurtured on the land in question, and it cannot be said that from 1929 to 1966 it was a temporary arrangement. In Himatlal Govindji v. CWT [1977] 106 ITR 658 (Guj.) a plot of land which was already converted to non-agricultural use for the purpose of the Land Revenue Code was being cultivated pending the finalisation of the transaction of sale. In the instant case, the land was put to agricultural use right till the date of sale and was being used for agricultural purposes. Crops were being grown, gra…

Himatlal Govindji v. CWT (106 ITR 658) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax