M.S. Srinivasa Naicker v. ITO

292 ITR 481High Court2007#7106 most cited

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

Sections most often in play

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 45 Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)section 10(37)section 2(14)section 45 section 10 previous year transfer india total income document company section 143(3)

Judgments citing M.S. Srinivasa Naicker v. ITO

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. DHARAM SINGH, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1839/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshito, Vs. Dharam Singh, Ward-1(1), 604, Sector-14, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Actps5801J Assessee By : Shri Vibhor Garg, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 147Section 148Section 6

…mentioned here that it has been held in a number of cases that the subsequent non agricultural use of land by the purchaser does not alter the agricultural status of land on date of sale as held in the following cases: i) M.S.Srinivasa Naicker Vs. ITO (2007) 292 ITR 481 (Mad.) ii) CIT Vs.Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta (2018) 96 taxmann.com 164 (Guj.) iii) CIT Vs. Rajshibhai Meramanbhai Odedra (2014) 222 Taxman 72 (Guj.) 8.2 The year of taxability/exemption of consideration received by the assessee i.e A.Y.2014-15 is not disputed either by the assessee or by the AO. The AO had disallowed the claim of exemption by the as…

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)

…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. Sreenivas Naicker v. ITO 292 ITR 481 also held to the same effect that is also undisputed fact that the lands were not converted to non agricultural use as per the law prevailing in the state. In the absence of conversion of land into non agricultural, the character of land 8 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer continues to be agricultural as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the ca…

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

…of CIT v. Debbie Alimao 331 ITR 59. 5. The mere fact that the land was sold to the real estate developer will not change the character of the land, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M.S. Sreenivas Naicker v. ITO 292 ITR 481. 6. Mere situation of the land in highly developed area does not change the character of land placing reliance of the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of ITO v. Kalathiingal Faizal Rahiman 158 ITD 448, as upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in 440 ITR 121. 7. There is no stipulation under the provisions of section 2(14) (iii) that the la…

VENKATARAM SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed

ITA 87/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkataram Spinning Mills Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Private Limited, Guntur. Guntur. Pan : Aafcv2151H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Shri Ld.Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit- Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ld.DR. Satyasai Rath, CIT-

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Venkataram Spinning Mills Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Private Limited, Guntur. Guntur. PAN : AAFCV2151H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri GVN Hari, AR. Revenue by: Shri Ld.DR. Satyasai Rath, CIT- DR. Date of hearing: 20.01.2025 Date of pronouncement: 04.02.2025 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National…

ACIT, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHANTICHAND MEHTA,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 302/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Income Tax, No. 196, Govindappa Naicken Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aavps4928E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advdocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erroneously Held That The Assessee Had Not Claimed Exemption U/S.10(37) [P.8.2] Though The Assessee, Vide His Letter Dated 26-12-2018 Stated "The Compensation Of Rs.7,62,40,126/- Received Was Claimed Exempt U/S.10(37), However, It Was Erroneously Omitted To Be Mentioned In The Return Of Income Filed."

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advdocate

Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 34Section 45Section 57

…tural activity on the said land. 5. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the ruling of Apex Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim [1993] 204 ITR 631 [SC] and the ruling of jurisdictional High Court in the case of M.S. Srinivasa Naicker vs. ITO [2007] 292 ITR 481 [Mad] & T.S.M.O.Mohamed Othuman vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 480 [Mad] which is in favour of the revenue. 6. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of the Apex Court " Statutory interest under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is for delayed payment of compensation and is, therefore, a revenue receipt liable to tax" in the case of S…

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)

…that the purchaser of the lands had used the lands for non-agricultural purpose has no bearing in determining the nature of assets sold by the assessee on the date of sale as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. S. Srinivas Naicker vs. ITO, 292 ITR 481 as extracted above. 12. Further, in the present case, the seller of the land had not taken any steps which would indicate the intention to exploit the land for non-agricultural use, it is only the buyer of the land who sought the permission for conversion of land into agricultural to non- agricultural on 05.09.2014 which is subsequent to the sale…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES & INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITA/179/2014HC Kerala28 Oct 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 260A

…6; and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Chennai v. M/s. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd7 for the proposition that the judgment relied on by the Revenue is considered by the Madras High Court and it has been finally held that the nature of schedule 6 (2007) 292 ITR 481 7 2017 (1) TMI 1209 - Madras High Court I.T.A. No.179/2014 -17- property is dependent upon the examination of circumstances in each case. He invites our attention to the findings of the Tribunal and the judgments relied on by the Tribunal for recording those findings and argues that no substantial question of law arises…

GHANSHYAM DASS GHIRAIYA,DELHI vs. ACIT, KARNAL

ITA 580/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaurmilla Ghanshyam Dass Ghiraiya Vs. Acit A-21, First Floor, Central Circle, Lok Vihar, Pitampura Karnal Delhi- 110 034 Pan Abupg5671N (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Year 2012-13 Usha Devi Vs. Acit A-3/705, Mohan Pride, Central Circle Kharak Pada, Kalyana Karnal Maharashtra 421301 Pan Ahypd0723C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT(DR)

Section 132ASection 2(14)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Urmilla Ghanshyam Dass Ghiraiya Vs. ACIT A-21, First Floor, Central Circle, Lok Vihar, Pitampura Karnal Delhi- 110 034 PAN ABUPG5671N (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Year 2012-13 Usha Devi Vs. ACIT A-3/705, Mohan Pride, Central Circle Kharak Pada, Kalyana Karnal Maharashtra 421301 PAN AHYPD0723C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year 2012-13 Ghanshyam Dass Ghiraiya, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner A-21, First Floor, Lok Vi…

URMILLA GHANSHYAM DASS GHIRAIYA,DELHI vs. ACIT, KARNAL

ITA 579/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2020AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT(DR)

Section 132ASection 2(14)

K.SHANTHI,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

ITA 433/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT

Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 54B

…Ad libitum reply of the ld. Authorised Representative was that intention of the purchaser was irrelevant in construing nature of the land. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M.S. Srinivasa Naicker vs. ITO, 292 ITR 481. Further, as per the ld. Authorised Representative, their lordships had also held that price for which the land was sold was not relevant on deciding on the nature of the land. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that in the event, assessee was held not eligible for claiming deduction u/s.54B of the Act, assessee should be given deduction…

VENKATESWARA HOSPITAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1769/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: 02.02.2017

Section 2(14)

…pproval for land for commercial purposes. Such consideration or such presumptions cannot put the assessee in adverse position. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M.S.Srinivasa Naiker & Others vs. ITO (292 ITR 481) (Mad) wherein it was held that the use of the buyer of the property after the sale of the land is irrelevant to decide as to whether the land was agricultural or not at the :- 5 -: time of sale of the land. The assessee also relied on the decision in the case of Mrs. Sakunthala Veachalam & Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam Vs. ACIT (2014) 369 ITR 55…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. B. SUDHAKAR PAI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 708/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesan, C.A

Section 2(14)

…will remain agricultural land for the purpose of the meaning of capital assets as per the provisions of section 2(14) of the income tax act. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions: i. M.S. Srinivasa Naicker & Others Vs. ITO 292 ITR 481 (Mad). ii. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd Vs. ACIT 180 taxman 114 (Delhi) iii. Order dated 28/11/2006 in case of H S Vijay Kumar Vs. CIT in ITA No.108/Bangalore/2005. iv. Order dt.13/06/2040 in case of Sri M.R. Seetharam Vs. ACIT in ITA No.1654/Bang/2012 and C.O. No.43/Bang/2014. v. Order dt.12/11/2013 in case of Shri Alampalli Sathyanarayana…

SOLAR PAPER MILL LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1163/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1163/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. Pratapkaran Paul, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.B. Koli, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…sessee could not substantiate its claim with any documentary evidence of situation of land outside distance of 5 kms from Chengalpattu Municipality and the decision relied by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M.S. Srinivasa Naicker vs. ITO (2007) 292 ITR 481 are distinguishable and not applicable to the present case. There is no authentic proof of agricultural operations. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Sri Subramaniam Vadivel in ITA No. 2118/Mds/2012 were held as ‘’non-agricultural property whether ITA No.1163/Mds/2015.…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. A.V.THOMAS LEATHER & ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD., CHENNAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2101/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2067/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 2(14)

….A. No.2101/Mds/15 CIT(Appeals) found that the use of the land by the buyer cannot be a determining factor to decide the nature of land in the hands of the assessee. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Sri M.S. Srinivasa Naicker v. ITO (292 ITR 481), the Commissioner found that the land in question is agricultural land. According to the Ld. D.R., no agriculturist would purchase the land at the price at which the land was sold by the assessee-company and the buyer has purchased the land for promoting real estate, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in treating the land as agricu…

A.V.THOMAS LEATHER & ALLIED PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2067/CHNY/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2067/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 2(14)

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MANSI FINANCE CHENNAI LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1560/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. A.B. Koli, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A

Section 133(6)Section 2(14)

…AO's argument that the sale of the impugned lands was contrary to the MOA is also not factually borne out from the relevant documentation as cited above. The AR’s reliance on the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M.S. Srinivasa Naicker vs. ITO (2007) 292 ITR 481(Mad) to buttress his point that the intention of the buyer, in this instant case, M/s. Rajalakshmi Education Services Pvt. Ltd. in purchasing the impugned property for the purpose of construction of Engineering College was irrelevant in determining the character of the impugned lands, is quite pertinent in the context of the present case, as un…