Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam v. Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam

369 ITR 558High Court2014#4206 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.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 147Section 2(14)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 45

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)section 2(14)section 45agricultural incomelong term capital gainslong term capital gaintransferappeal before the tribunalsection 148previous yearsection 147business

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

D.Sivagama Sundari, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 451/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 451/Mds/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. D. Sivagama Sundari, The Income Tax Officer, 32, Boag Road, T. Nagar, V. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aacps4247H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Jagadisan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.M. Bhusari,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017

For Appellant: Shri V. Jagadisan, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.M. Bhusari,CIT

…ative placed his reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd. (2016) 97 CCH 0005 and also judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam vs. ACIT, (2014) 369 ITR 558. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the unreported judgment of this Bench of the Tribunal in ITO vs.G. Rajalakshmi, ITA No.2807/Mds/2014 dated 28.08.2015. The Ld. representative also placed reliance on various 4 I.T.A. No. 451/Mds/2017 judgments of the various High Courts including the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in CWT…

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)

…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 558 (Mad) of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. The Ld.AR, further, submitted that the assessee has submitted all the documents from the Revenue authorities as well as the Village Development Officer proving that the land in question was agricultural land and the assessee was carrying out agricultural operations. The AO has not disputed the c…

Mukund R.Kathare, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1221/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1221/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Mukund R. Kathare, C/O S. Venkatram & Co., The Assistant Commissioner Of Chartered Accountants, V. Income Tax, 218, T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Company Circle – I(3), Chennai - 600 018. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aabpk 2815 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sahadevan, JCIT

…assessee further submitted that an appeal was filed before the CIT(Appeals) contending that the income was wrongly included in the total income, therefore, in view of the judgment of Madras High Court in Sakuntala Vedachalam & Vanitha Manickavasagam v ACIT (369 ITR 558), the profit on sale of agricultural land cannot be included in the total taxable income. The CIT(Appeals) ignoring the evidence filed by the assessee, observed that the assessee has not adduced any evidence to show that the land in question is an agricultural land. 3 I.T.A. No.1221/Mds/16 Referring to the copy of adangal and chitta extracts,…

T.S.R.Khannaiyann, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, both the above tax case (appeals) are allowed

ITA 804/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 804/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. Sasikumar, IRS, JCIT

…er number of years could not convert it to a business venture. Ld. Authorised Representative strongly placed reliance on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. :- 11 -: Sakunthala Vedachalam vs. Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam vs. (2014) 369 ITR 558. 11. Per Contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the series of transactions entered by the assessee over a number of years clearly proved that it was nothing but a venture in the nature of business. As per ld. Departmental Representative, lower authorities had correctly applied the yardsticks laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court i…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Dhiren P. Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both revenue’s appeal and assessee’s CO stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5164/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)

…4/Mum/2014 CO No. 15/Mum/2015 i) CIT v Nitish Rameshchandra Chordia [2015] 374 ITR 531 (Bom); ii) CIT v Lal Singh [2010] 325 ITR 588 (Punjab & Haryana); iii) ITO v Amrutilal B Shah [2013] 22 ITR (T) 668 (Mumbai – Trib): iv) Mrs. Sakunthal Vedachalam [2015] 369 ITR 558 (Mad); v) Supriya Kanwar v [2019] 149 ITD 1 (Jodhpur)(Trib)(TM). 10. On the issue of LTCG as raised in the Departmental appeal, he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned order after considering the submissions and evidences placed on record and hence the same should be upheld. On disallowance of expenditure also, he strongly r…

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)

…at the land in question was agricultural land even though it was sold for industrial use. 4. The Ld. representative for the assessee has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Sakunthala Vedachalam v. Vanitha Manickavasagam (2014) 369 ITR 558 and submitted that when the land was classified as agricultural land in revenue records and which was evidenced by the adangal, the same has to be treated as agricultural land. The High Court further found that prior to the date of sale, it may not be necessary to carry out the agricultural operations. 5. The Ld. representative for the assesse…

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)

…at the land in question was agricultural land even though it was sold for industrial use. 4. The Ld. representative for the assessee has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Sakunthala Vedachalam v. Vanitha Manickavasagam (2014) 369 ITR 558 and submitted that when the land was classified as agricultural land in revenue records and which was evidenced by the adangal, the same has to be treated as agricultural land. The High Court further found that prior to the date of sale, it may not be necessary to carry out the agricultural operations. 5. The Ld. representative for the assesse…

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)

…that the assessee’s land are not agricultural in nature and further Authorised Representative relied on the judgments of jurisdictional High Court in the case of M.S. Srinivasa Naicker vs. ITO 292 ITR 481 and Sakunthala Vedachalam vs. Vanitha Manickavasagam 369 ITR 558. 07. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. It is an admitted fact that the land was held by the assessee as a capital asset from the date of purchase till the date of sale. There is no dispute on this aspect that it is evidenced by the entries reflected in the Balance Sheet of the assessee company. The assessee's c…