Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam v. Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 2(14), Section 148, Section 234A, Section 234B.

Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam v. Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam

Q: How many judgments cite Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam v. Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam v. Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam (369 ITR 558), spanning 2015 to 2026.

369 ITR 558High Court2014#4266 most cited

What is Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam v. Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam authority for?

Land classified as agricultural in revenue records, evidenced by documents like Adangal, is treated as agricultural land and profits from its sale are not subject to capital gains tax.

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

Also referred to as

Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam · section 2(14) · agricultural land · capital asset · capital gains tax · revenue records · Adangal · sale of land · section 45

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 2(14)Section 148 Section 234A Section 234B Section 234C Section 45

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)section 2(14)section 45 agricultural income long term capital gains long term capital gain transfer appeal before the tribunal section 148 previous year section 147 business

Judgments citing Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam v. Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam

ASHUTOSH RAM SHEWALKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2), NAGPUR

In the result, both the above Tax

ITA 431/NAG/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shripawan Singh& Shrikhettra Mohan Royashutosh Ram Shewalkar Ito, Ward – 5(2) 80, North Ambazari Road, Vs Bsnl, Rttcbldg Daga Layout Nagpur – 440010 Dharmapeth, Nagpur - 440010 [Pan: Aepps8104N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shrimanoj G Moryani, Adv& Shribhavesh M. Moryani, Adv Revenue By Shrisurjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01.04.2026

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 250

…vidences of the assessee and bring on record adverse material to suggest that the land was not classified as an agricultural land. However, nothing of that sort is available on record. 9. The Hon'bje High Court Madrass in the case law of ShakuntalaVedachalam (369 ITR 558), considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (32 ITR 466), held as under :- 9. The issue involved in the above Tax Case (Appeals) lies on the narrow compass, viz, whether the lands sold by the assessee are agricultural lands and whether they are entitled to the benefit of exemption capital gains tax 10. It is on…

SUDARSANAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 22(6), TAMBARAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 707/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:707/Chny/2025 धनि्धरणवरध/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sudarsanam, The Income-Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 22(6), 68/52. Sithivinayagar Koil St., Vs. Tambaram. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. [Pan:Btwps-8389-E] (अपील्थ्/Appellant) (प्थ्/Respondent) अपील्थ्कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate प्थ्कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनव््कीत्रीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 घोरण्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…able in the two certificates issued by the VAO, the AO is not justified in doubting the same and alleging that the same was fabricated. 9. The ld.AR submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Mrs.Sakunthala Vedachalam (369 ITR 558) it was categorically held that when the land was classified as agricultural land in revenue records as evidenced by the Adangal, the same has to be treated as agricultural land. The Hon’ble High Court further found that prior to the date of sale, it may not be necessary to carry out the agricultural operations. The assessee had submitted Adangal…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANICKAM GAUTAMAN, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2753/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2753/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Rajamanickam Gautam, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Vs. No.65, Old No.46, Chennai. Defence Colony, Nandambakkam, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Apgpg 6055G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 45(3)

…land should be considered as an agricultural land and not capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Act and this principle is supported by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam, Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam v. ACIT [2014] 369 ITR 558 (Mad). Further, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. P. Mahalakshmi 276 Taxman 224 (Madras) has also considered an identical issue and held that when the land was used for agricultural operation and the said land was also situated beyond the specified limit of the municipality, then the said land should be treated as an agricultura…

MANISHA ASHUTOSH SHEWALKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 67/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234A

…ences of the assessee and bring on record adverse material to suggest that the land was not classified as an agricultural land. However, nothing of that sort is available on record. 9. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case law of Shakuntala Vedachalam (369 ITR 558), considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (32 ITR 466), held as under: - 9. The issue involved in the above Tax Case (Appeals) lies on the narrow compass, viz., whether the lands sold by the assessees are agricultural lands 7 Manisha Ashutosh Shewalkar ITA no.67/Nag./2025 and whether they are entitled to the…

M/S. R.K. INVESTMENTS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-3(1),, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1159/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1159/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. R.K. Investments Dcit Ground Floor, Block-Iv, Non-Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ No.184-187,Temple Steps, Chennai. Vs. Anna Salai Little Mount, Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafr-3413-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(14)(lii)Section 263Section 45

…diction under section 263 to super impose his views on the views of the assessing officers and which are not unsustainable in law. 16. PCIT ought to have appreciated that the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sakunthala Vedachalam (Mrs.) v. ACIT (2014) 369 ITR 558 Mad HC and CIT vs P Ashok Kumar TCA 268/2011 on 2 Jan 2019 Mad have held that once the lands are classified as Agricultural lands in the land records, profit on sale of such land is not subject to capital gains. 17. PCIT also ought to have appreciated the jurisdictional courts verdict through The High Court of Madras in the case of Principal Comm…

ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD1(2), CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANICKAM ARULSELVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 479/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.479/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & C.O. No. 44/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 479/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajamanickam Arulselvan, 65, Defence Officer Colony, 2Nd International Taxation Ward 1(2), Bsnl Building Tower-1, 4Th Floor, Avenue, 6Th Cross Street, Guindy, Greams Road, Thousand Light, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aappa2346C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, Dated 22.02.2023 Passed In Ita No. 10039/Cit(A)-16/2012-2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On The Facts, The Merits Of The Case & Provisions Of Law As Well & Hence Unsustainable. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Failing To Appreciate That When The Assessee Had Applied For Conversion Of The Vacant Land Into A Plotted

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 45(3)

…land should be considered as an agricultural land and not capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Act and this principle is supported by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam, Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam v. ACIT [2014] 369 ITR 558 (Mad). Further, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. P. Mahalakshmi 276 Taxman 224 (Madras) has also considered an identical issue and held that when the land was used for agricultural operation and the said land was also situated beyond the specified limit of the 11 I.T.A. No.479/Chny/23 & C.O. No. 44/Chny/23 municipality, then t…

PANDIT VETTRIVEL,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3 (4),, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 146/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.146/Chny/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Shri Pandit Vettrivel Acit बनाम B-272, Ground Floor, B-Block Central Circle-3(4) Rear Flat, Greater Kailash Part I, Chennai-34. / Vs. New Delhi-110 048. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajzpp-4861-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he case of CIT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (32 ITR 466) to support the conclusion that the land was not used for agricultural operations. 4.4 However, the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Shakuntala Vedachalam (369 ITR 558) wherein it was held that since the assessee produced a copy of Adangal and the letter from Tehsildar which showed that the land was agricultural in nature, the same has to be accepted as agricultural income. As per Adangal records, the land was classified as agricultural land and therefore, the exemption could not be denied to the assessee. It w…

GEORGE GEE VARGHESE,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 7(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3004/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3004/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri. George Gee Varghese, The Income-Tax Officer, S-103, 4Th Street, Anna Nagar, V. Non Corporate Ward -7(2), Chennai – 600 040. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Ahspg-4301-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. R. Viajayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

…section 2(14) of the Act: hence not liable for capital gain tax Under the Income- tax Act." 7.2 The other case laws relied upon by the appellant in the order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Sakuntala Vedachalam Vs Vanitha Manickavasagam reported in (2014) 369 ITR 558 (Mad). In that case, the Hon'ble Court had held that as per Adangal records, lands were classified as agricultural lands and appellant had also made revenue payment and satisfied other conditions of Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the appellant could not be denied exemption from capital gains tax. 7.3 Now, we have to see whether t…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. K.DHANDAPANI AND CO. LTD., CHENGALPUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit, K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., Corporate Circle-4(2), No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O No.109/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.1428/Chny/2017] "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., The Dcit, No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle-4(2), Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45

…es can raise only a rebuttable presumption, they are, however, good prima facie evidence. Following the view endorsed by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in a similar case of Sakunthala Vedachalam v Asst Commissioner (369 ITR 558) (Mad) declared that where the classification of lands as per the revenue records are agricultural lands, which are evidenced by the adangal and the letter of the Tahsilar and satisfies other conditions of section 2(14) then the assessee was liable to be exempted from capital gain tax. This view was further fortified by the jurisdictional High Co…

NOSHIR DARABSHAW TALATI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR 7(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1516/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Sr. A.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250Section 45

…mining whether the land is an agricultural land. The learned AR also placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Hindustan industrial Resources Ltd vs ACIT (335 ITR 77) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam vs ACIT (369 ITR 558). 11. As is evident from the record, the other conditions of section 2(14) of the Act, which defines the term ‘capital asset’, pertaining to population and distance from local limits of any municipality or cantonment board, are not in dispute in the present case. The claim of the Revenue is that the land in respect of which profit was earned by…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. AYISHATHU JAILANI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

ITA 708/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250(6)

…e Revenue and on the basis of those circumstances, we are inclined to conclude that the property was not an agricultural land. The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee also relied on the judgments of Sakuntha Vedachalam & Vanitha Manickavasagar vs. ACIT 369 ITR 558 and CIT vs. Malwa Texturising P. Ltd 292 ITR 488 (MP) which are distinguishable on facts. Accordingly, this appeal of the Revenue is allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITANo.1793/Mds/2013 is allowed 7. Upon perusal of aforesaid adjudication, we find that very detailed findings / reasoning has been rendered by the coordinate b…

MR. JAIRAM G. KIMMANE,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2026/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(14)

…he vicinity of the property was an irrelevant consideration. In this regard, he relied on the following passages in the decision of Hon’ble Page 7 of 18 Madras High Court in the case of Mrs.Sakunthala Vedachalam -vs- The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 369 ITR 558 (Madras) :- “13. According to the Tribunal that if the above tests are applied, the assessees could not satisfy any of the conditions except condition Nos.1,5,11 and 12. The Tribunal held that the assessees could not prove that the lands was actually or ordinarily used for agricultural purposes. This reasoning does not appear to be correct in vie…

ASHOK C. THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WARD -29(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2625/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Udaya B. Jakke

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

…s 2(14) of the Act, so as to attract capital gain tax. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:- i) Sercon Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, 136 ITR 881 (Guj.); ii) Mr.s Shakuntala Vedachalam & Ors., v/s ACIT, 369 ITR 558 (Mad.); iii) CIT v/s Debbie Alemao & Co., 331 ITR 59 (Bom.); iv) Chalsami Nagaratna Kumari v/s ITO, 79 taxmann.com 104 (Vizag.); v) CWT v/s H.V. Mungale, 145 ITR 208 (Bom.). 5. Shri Udaya B. Jakke, the learned Departmental Representative submitted, the very fact that the assessee was not carrying out any agricultural activity on the lands sold a…

VASANT SHANKAR WALANJ,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

ITA 1006/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)

…) 10 Taxman 1 which plays guiding factors to be considered while determining the nature and character of the land. Another case relied on the issue is the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Mrs. Shakunthala Vedachalam Vs. ACIT, 369 ITR 558 (Mad.). The second contention of the assessee is that land situated beyond 8 Kms. from local limits of Lonavala Municipal Corporation. In support of this contention, the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Minguel Chandra Pais & ANR, reported as 282 ITR 618. A.Y.2010-11 5. The…

JAGDISH NANDKISHOR KHANDELWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

ITA 1005/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)

ITO CORPORATE WARD 2 , COIMBATORE vs. SHRI. T S R KHANNAIYAN, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 812/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT

Section 10(38)Section 2

…16 dated 28.10.2016, the Ld. representative submitted that this Tribunal found the assessee is not in the business of real estate. By placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam v. Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam (2014) 369 ITR 558, the Ld. representative submitted that the High Court found in similar circumstances that the land is agricultural land. Since the assessee cultivated the land and merely because the land was sold to a non- agriculturist, according to the Ld. representative, it cannot be construed as non-agricultural land. Moreover, this Tribunal in the asses…

T.S.R.KHANNAIYANN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 257/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT

Section 10(38)Section 2

T.S.R.KHANNAIYANN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 256/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT

Section 10(38)Section 2

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(2) , CHENNAI vs. M.RAZZACK , CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross- objection of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1807/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1807/Mds/2017 & C.O. No.165/Mds/2017 (In I.T.A. No.1807/Mds/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

…ure of land continuous to be agricultural land. Therefore, According to the Ld. counsel, the profit on sale of such land cannot be considered as capital gain. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam v. ACIT (2014) 369 ITR 558, the Ld.counsel submitted that when the 4 I.T.A. No.1807/Mds/17 C.O. No.165/Mds/17 land is classified as Nanjai land in the Revenue records, merely because the purchaser intended to use the land for some other purpose, it cannot be said that the land in question is not agricultural land. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appea…

A.EBANEZER JEYAANBU,RAMANATHAPURAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1519/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013—2014. A. Ebanezer Jeya Anbu, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 1/1045-1, Sethupathy Nagar, Of Income Tax, 3Rd Ring Road, Central Circle 1, Ramanathapuram. Madurai

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan C.A Department byFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, IRS, CIT

Section 132Section 153C

…bruary, March and April, 2013 reflected the actual and correct figure. Further, according to him, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional ITA 1519 to 1523/Mds/2017. :- 9 -: High Court in the case of Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam vs. ACIT, (2015) 369 ITR 558, classification of agricultural land as per Revenue record was the only requirement to be met, for proving the agricultural nature of the land sold. Ld. Authorised Representative pointed out that the Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Siddharth J. Desai (supra) was duly considered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in…

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2