Lavleen Singhal v. Dy. CIT

111 TTJ 326Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#12025 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 7(1)section 153(2)section 45(5)section 159enhanced compensationcompulsory acquisitionlegal representativesection 2(14)section 45liable to taxreassessment proceedingssection 153

Judgments citing Lavleen Singhal v. Dy. CIT

Mahabir, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(5), Gurgaon

ITA 879/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITAs No.879 & 2597/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mahabir, Vs ITO, C/o M/s RRATAXINDIA, Ward-2(5), D-28, South Extension Part-I, Gurgaon. New Delhi– 110 049. PAN: CDKPM1226K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee agains…

Mahabir, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(5), Gurgaon

ITA 2597/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITAs No.879 & 2597/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mahabir, Vs ITO, C/o M/s RRATAXINDIA, Ward-2(5), D-28, South Extension Part-I, Gurgaon. New Delhi– 110 049. PAN: CDKPM1226K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee agains…

Ahamedpillai Ahamedkutty, Ernakulam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam

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

ITA 603/COCH/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

…fortified by the judgment of the co- ordinate benches in following cases: - (i) Harsha V. Milani v. JCIT reported in 111 TTJ 310 (Pune) (ii) DCIT v. M.Kalyan Chakravarthy ITA No.729/Hyd/13 dated 24th October, 2014. (iii) Lovleen Singhal v. DCIT reported in 111 TTJ 326. (iv) Hindustan Industrial Resources Vs ACIT- 335 ITR 77(Del) 7. Besides these above case laws, there are so many other cases, wherein it has been held that if the character of land is agricultural in nature, then the compensation received in lieu of such land is exempt. Therefore, we are of the view that the lower authorities are not correct in…

Sh. Sunil Gupta, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

ITA 77/ASR/2006[1988-89]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Dec 2023AY 1988-89

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 45(5)Section 6Section 7(3)

…limits Page 16 on Paper Book No: II filed dated Nov 26,2008where only the areas around Jammu City have been notified. No other Town in J&K has been notified. Further Relaince is placed on following judicial precedents a) Lavleen Singhal Vs. Dy. CIT cited at 111 TTJ 326 (Delhi "B" Tribunal), the assessee was owner of an agricultural land which was recorded as such in revenue records. However, the assessee could not cultivate it for fourteen years as he was an athlete and due to taking part in Olympics, remained out of country most of I.T.A. Nos. 75 to 77/Asr/2006 Assessment Year.: 1988-89 10 time and thus could…

Smt. Anuradha Mahajan, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

ITA 76/ASR/2006[1988-89]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Dec 2023AY 1988-89

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 45(5)Section 6Section 7(3)

…limits Page 16 on Paper Book No: II filed dated Nov 26,2008where only the areas around Jammu City have been notified. No other Town in J&K has been notified. Further Relaince is placed on following judicial precedents a) Lavleen Singhal Vs. Dy. CIT cited at 111 TTJ 326 (Delhi "B" Tribunal), the assessee was owner of an agricultural land which was recorded as such in revenue records. However, the assessee could not cultivate it for fourteen years as he was an athlete and due to taking part in Olympics, remained out of country most of I.T.A. Nos. 75 to 77/Asr/2006 Assessment Year.: 1988-89 10 time and thus could…

Smt. Dhanwanti Devi (Deceased), Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

ITA 75/ASR/2006[1988-89]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Dec 2023AY 1988-89

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 45(5)Section 6Section 7(3)

…limits Page 16 on Paper Book No: II filed dated Nov 26,2008where only the areas around Jammu City have been notified. No other Town in J&K has been notified. Further Relaince is placed on following judicial precedents a) Lavleen Singhal Vs. Dy. CIT cited at 111 TTJ 326 (Delhi "B" Tribunal), the assessee was owner of an agricultural land which was recorded as such in revenue records. However, the assessee could not cultivate it for fourteen years as he was an athlete and due to taking part in Olympics, remained out of country most of I.T.A. Nos. 75 to 77/Asr/2006 Assessment Year.: 1988-89 10 time and thus could…

Dilip Balchand Raisoni, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1153/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…eason. He, therefore, submitted that the conclusion of Ld.CIT(A) that the land cannot be cultivated is factually incorrect. He also placed reliance on the decisions in the case of CWT Vs. H.V. Mungale 145 ITR 208 (Bom.), Lavleen Singhal Vs. DCIT (Del. ITAT) 111 TTJ 326. He, therefore, submitted the addition be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with reference to taxability of sale of land. It is assessee’s case that the land being agricultural land. The impug…

M/S. Aerens Developers and Engineers Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5054/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J.S. Reddy Assessment Yea: 2007-08 Aerens Developers & Engineers Ltd., Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Mohindra Tower, Central Circel-8, 2A-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaca2199R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Yea: 2007-08 Aerens R. Infra-Structure Ltd., Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Mohindra Tower, Central Circel-8, 2A-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaca2199R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Department By: Shri R.K. Garg, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 :08.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessees Have Questioned The First Appellate Order On The Following Common Grounds Of Appeals: The Order Of Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Bad In Law & On Facts. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Taxing The Compensation Of Rs. 1 Crore As Revenue Receipt Ignoring The Various Judicial Pronouncements & Submissions Of The Assessee. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Wrongly Rejected The Additional Evidence, I The Shape Of Fard Of Land & Resolution Of The Company, Produced By The As Per The Provision Of Rule 46A.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Garg, DR

…hout establishing and proving that the land was put into use for non-agricultural purposes does not and cannot convert the agricultural land into non-agricultural land” 7. Similarly the Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of lavleen Singhal Vs DCIT reported in 111 TTJ 326 has held that merely because a land is not cultivated since last 14 years that does not mean that it has losses its character of agricultural land. Copy of the judgment is annexed with this synopsis- 8. It is next submitted that the assessee further seeks to rely on the judgment of Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Chand Prabha 13 Jain cop…