K.Lakshmanan and Co. v. CIT

239 ITR 597Supreme Court of India1999#8918 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing K.Lakshmanan and Co. v. CIT

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD vs. NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED, R.R. DIST, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1464/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 14A

…Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd is not applicable to the present case as the facts are totally different. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions. 14. In the case of K. Lakshamanan & Co (239 ITR 597), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "agricultural income would mean an income derived from such land by the performance by a cultivator of any process ordinarily employed by him to render the produce raised by him fit to be taken to market. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid statutory provision that what is taken to the market and so…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD vs. NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED, R.R. DIST, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1463/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 14A

…Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd is not applicable to the present case as the facts are totally different. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions. 14. In the case of K. Lakshamanan & Co (239 ITR 597), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "agricultural income would mean an income derived from such land by the performance by a cultivator of any process ordinarily employed by him to render the produce raised by him fit to be taken to market. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid statutory provision that what is taken to the market and so…

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED,R.R.DIST. vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1457/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 14A

…Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd is not applicable to the present case as the facts are totally different. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions. 14. In the case of K. Lakshamanan & Co (239 ITR 597), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "agricultural income would mean an income derived from such land by the performance by a cultivator of any process ordinarily employed by him to render the produce raised by him fit to be taken to market. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid statutory provision that what is taken to the market and so…

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED,R.R.DIST. vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1456/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 14A

…Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd is not applicable to the present case as the facts are totally different. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions. 14. In the case of K. Lakshamanan & Co (239 ITR 597), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "agricultural income would mean an income derived from such land by the performance by a cultivator of any process ordinarily employed by him to render the produce raised by him fit to be taken to market. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid statutory provision that what is taken to the market and so…

K.SRI VARSHITHA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2082/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2015-16 K. Vinuthna Reddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-6(4), Pan: Bmzpk 6915 Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 K. Sri Varshitha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-6(4), Pan: Bngpk 5701 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Ms. Sri Varshitha Kondamadugula & Smt. Vinuthna Reddy Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-6, Hyderabad In Appeal No. 10279 & 10278/2017- 18/B2/Cit(A)-6, Both Dated 20/07/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) Of The Act For The Ay 2015-16. Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Related To The Same Issue, They Are Taken Up For Hearing Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 2

…he company, reliance was placed in the following decisions: - a. Proagro seeds vs. JCIT [2003] reported in 126 Taxman 37 (Delhi Trib) b. ITO vs. Namdhari seeds Pvt. Ltd. [2012] reported in 341 ITR 342 (Kar HC) c. K.Lakshmanan and Co vs. CIT [1999] reported in 239 ITR 597 (SC) d. CIT vs. Stanes amalgamated estates Ltd. [1998] reported in 232 ITR 443 (MAD HC) 6. With the above observation, the Ld. CIT (A) concluded that the amount received by both the assessee from the company in the form of lease rent will not fall under the definition of agricultural income as envisaged U/s. 2(1A) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld.…

K. VINUTHNA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2081/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2015-16 K. Vinuthna Reddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-6(4), Pan: Bmzpk 6915 Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 K. Sri Varshitha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-6(4), Pan: Bngpk 5701 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Ms. Sri Varshitha Kondamadugula & Smt. Vinuthna Reddy Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-6, Hyderabad In Appeal No. 10279 & 10278/2017- 18/B2/Cit(A)-6, Both Dated 20/07/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) Of The Act For The Ay 2015-16. Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Related To The Same Issue, They Are Taken Up For Hearing Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 2

…he company, reliance was placed in the following decisions: - a. Proagro seeds vs. JCIT [2003] reported in 126 Taxman 37 (Delhi Trib) b. ITO vs. Namdhari seeds Pvt. Ltd. [2012] reported in 341 ITR 342 (Kar HC) c. K.Lakshmanan and Co vs. CIT [1999] reported in 239 ITR 597 (SC) d. CIT vs. Stanes amalgamated estates Ltd. [1998] reported in 232 ITR 443 (MAD HC) 6. With the above observation, the Ld. CIT (A) concluded that the amount received by both the assessee from the company in the form of lease rent will not fall under the definition of agricultural income as envisaged U/s. 2(1A) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld.…

SRI B S BYREGOWDA (HUF) ,RAMANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , RAMANAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Assessment

ITA 177/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. B. S. Byregowda (Huf), Vs. The Income-Tax Officer Borehalli, Gankallu Post, Ward-1, Ramanagar – 562 109. Ramanagar. Pan : Aaihb 5884 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. Sudheendra, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Padma Meenakshi, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…ithout prejudice, it was submitted that the AO has treated 50% of the income from sericulture as agricultural income attributable to growing of Mulberry leaves in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Lakshmanan & Co. Vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 597 (SC); where it was held that income derived by the assessee from sale of cocoons raised by it by growing and feeding mulberry leaves to silk worms is not agricultural income. The learned AR contended that in these circumstances, the income from sericulture during the year under consideration being Rs.15,42,199/-, then 50% of the same amounting to…

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 339/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 14A

…. Earlier, there was a requirement for obtaining certificate of Chartered Accountant for making remittance to the Non-Resident, but the same was operating under the Circulars issued by CBDT. The Apex Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. (239 ITR 597) has held that the expression 'taxable income' used in sec. 195(1) applies to any sum payable to the Non- Resident even if such a sum is a trading receipt in the hands of the payee, if, the whole or part-t-hereof is chargeable to tax under the Act. These provisions are only limited to the sums which are of 'Pure Income' nature. Based on this judg…

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 560/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra/A.K.Sabat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR

…. Earlier, there was a requirement for obtaining certificate of Chartered Accountant for making remittance to the Non-Resident, but the same was operating under the Circulars issued by CBDT. The Apex Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. (239 ITR 597) has held that the expression 'taxable income' used in S. 195(1) applies to any sum payable to the Non-Resident even if such a sum is a trading receipt in the hands of the payee, if, the whole or part thereof is chargeable to tax under the Act. These provisions are only limited to the sums which are of 'Pure Income' nature. Based on this judgment…

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 331/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 40

…. Earlier, there was a requirement for obtaining certificate of Chartered Accountant for making remittance to the Non-Resident, but the same was operating under the Circulars issued by CBDT. The Apex Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. (239 ITR 597) has held that the expression 'taxable income' used in S. 195(1) applies to any sum payable to the Non-Resident even if such a sum is a trading receipt in the hands of the payee, if, the whole or part thereof is chargeable to tax under the Act. These provisions are only limited to the sums which are of 'Pure Income' nature. Based on this judgment…

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 315/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 40

…. Earlier, there was a requirement for obtaining certificate of Chartered Accountant for making remittance to the Non-Resident, but the same was operating under the Circulars issued by CBDT. The Apex Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. (239 ITR 597) has held that the expression 'taxable income' used in S. 195(1) applies to any sum payable to the Non-Resident even if such a sum is a trading receipt in the hands of the payee, if, the whole or part thereof is chargeable to tax under the Act. These provisions are only limited to the sums which are of 'Pure Income' nature. Based on this judgment…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

ITA 289/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri B.K.MohapatraFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 197Section 263Section 40Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-2011 DCIT, Circle 1(1), Vs. Paradeep Phosphates Bhubaneswar. Limited, Bayan Bhawan, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. AABCP 327 (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Paradeep Phosphates Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Limited, Bayan Bhawan, Pt. Bhubaneswar. Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No. AABCP 327 (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.K.Mohapatra Revenue by : Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR Date…

K.Lakshmanan and Co. v. CIT (239 ITR 597) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax