Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO

128 ITR 87High Court1981#11043 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 271FSection 273BSection 69Section 144Section 271(1)(a)

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)section 271bbsection 271casection 271basection 271csection 271esection 271fsection 273bsection 271dsection 271bsection 271aasection 271a

Judgments citing Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

…Income-tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for delay up to August 1980, as the Bombay High Court in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO [1981] 128 ITR 87 had held that capital gains on sale of agricultural land were not taxable, and accordingly reduced the default period to 12 months. The Revenue contended before the High Court that the Tribunal erred in accepting the assessee’s explanation for part of the delay. The Gujarat High Court, however, held that the existence of reasonable cause was a que…

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

…Income-tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for delay up to August 1980, as the Bombay High Court in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO [1981] 128 ITR 87 had held that capital gains on sale of agricultural land were not taxable, and accordingly reduced the default period to 12 months. The Revenue contended before the High Court that the Tribunal erred in accepting the assessee’s explanation for part of the delay. The Gujarat High Court, however, held that the existence of reasonable cause was a que…

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 705/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

…Income-tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for delay up to August 1980, as the Bombay High Court in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO [1981] 128 ITR 87 had held that capital gains on sale of agricultural land were not taxable, and accordingly reduced the default period to 12 months. The Revenue contended before the High Court that the Tribunal erred in accepting the assessee’s explanation for part of the delay. The Gujarat High Court, however, held that the existence of reasonable cause was a que…

Shahnaj, Near Bherudanji Well vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Income Tax Office

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

…me from transfer of agricultural land situated in the specified area only and cautiously excluded such land from the scope of agricultural income. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manubhai A. Sheth v. ITO [1981] 128 ITR 87/[1980] 4 Taxman 381 in support of his contention that profits or gains on sale of agricultural land will be revenue within the meaning of section 2(1) (now 2(1 A) of the Act). This principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case reported in 208 ITR 98 (sic). By virtue of the amendments to section 2(14)(ili) of the Act, only a…

Income Tax Officer, Alwar vs. M/S Krish Home Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we set aside the order of the ld

ITA 390/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rawat (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 2(14)(iii)

…1970, all income arising out of sale of agricultural land including urban agricultural land were held to be agricultural income by various Courts including Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Manubhai A. Sheth vs. N.D. Nirgudkar 128 ITR 87 (Bom) and J. Raghottaama Reddy 169 ITR 174 (AP) respectively. The ld. A/R has thus submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the capital gains on sale of land situated in India, which is used for agricultural purpose, would be revenue derived from such land and, therefore, the same is agricultural income within the meaning of section…

Shraddha Bagla, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2879/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Mrs. Shraddha Bagla Ito-13(1)(1) 12, 7/11, Chunawala Bldg, Mumbai बिधम/ Kosla Street Vs. Mumbai-400003

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 45

…see, took us through the written submissions which were filed by the assessee before the CIT(A). The ld. A.R further took support of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Manubhai A. Sheth & Ors. Vs. N.D. Nirgudkar, ITO & Anr. (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom) and submitted that for claim of exemption of profit on sale of rural agricultural land, it was not mandatory for the assessee to demonstrate that agricultural operations were being carried on the same. The ld. A.R further submitted that the exception carved out in Sec. 2(14)(iii) for excluding certain agricultural lands from the sweep of the…

Shri Jagdish Prasad Goel, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2121/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 2121/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Jagdish Prasad Goel -Vs- Dcit, Circle-43, Kolkata [Pan: Affpg 1693 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 250

…seen. (Emphasis ours) These findings of the fact are not disturbed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence it is not in dispute that what is purchased and sold is agricultural land. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manubhai A.Sheth v. Nirgudkar (2nd ITO [1981] 128 ITR 87) (supra) held as follows :- “the capital gains arising from the sale of land situated in India, which land is used for agricultural purposes, would be revenue derived from such land and, therefore, agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of S. Mutyam Reddy v. IT…

M/S Rachana Constructions, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 34/NAG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 11Section 132Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

…his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the following case laws:– 1) ITAT order in ITA No.362/Ju/2010 in the case of Smt. Supriya Kanwar vide order dated 13/05/2014 2) (2001) 247 ITR 150(SC) Singhai Rakesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. 3) (1981) 128 ITR 87(Bom.) Manubhai A. Sheth & Ors. v/s ITO. 6 M/s. Rachana Constructions 5. The learned Counsel for assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) both has referred to enquiry made from NMC under section 133(6) in respect to distance from Municipal Limits. Perusal of inquiry report indicates that it is ae…

Credential Realtores Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1672/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary

For Appellant: Sh. K.C. Singhal, Adv. and Sh. H.K. Batra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 2Section 2(1)

…see." Page 12 of 16 14. Whereas on page 5 of the paper book it was held in para 9 and 10 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- “9. It appears that by reason of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO [1981] 128 ITR 87.1 an Explanation was added by the Finance Act, 1989, with effect from 1-4- 1970, to clause (1A) of section 2 which read thus : "Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that revenue derived from land shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included any income arising from the transfer of any land referred to in ite…

Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO (128 ITR 87) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax