PCIT v. Kalathingal Faisal Rahman

416 ITR 311High Court2019#24915 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 144B Section 40(a)(ia)Section 54B

Judgments citing PCIT v. Kalathingal Faisal Rahman

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)

…nd is considered to be agricultural land. This decision was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 453 ITR 457. 15. We also noted that the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT v. Kalathingal Faisal Rahman [2019] 416 ITR 311 is clearly applicable to the facts of the assessee as the Hon'ble High Court had reiterated the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M.S. Sreenivas Naicker v. ITO 292 ITR 481 and PCIT v. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd. [2016] 388 ITR 514. However, in that case relief was not granted to the assessee for failure of the a…

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

…nd is considered to be agricultural land. This decision was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 453 ITR 457. 27. We also noted that the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT v. Kalathingal Faisal Rahman [2019] 416 ITR 311 is clearly applicable to the facts of the assessee as the Hon'ble High Court had reiterated the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M.S. Sreenivas Naicker v. ITO 292 ITR 481 and PCIT v. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd. [2016] 388 ITR 514. However, in that case relief was not granted to the assessee for failure of the a…

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

…learned counsel's arguments are that the starting point relevant for determining whether the schedule property was sold as agricultural land or non- agricultural land was the date of execution of MoA dated 2 (1988) 172 ITR 95 (Bom) 3 (2019) 416 ITR 311 (Ker) I.T.A. No.179/2014 -12- 01.12.1995. MoA enables the assessee to cut and carry away standing rubber trees in schedule property. The assessee by cutting and carrying away the standing rubber trees shall not be allowed to contend that the schedule property which had rubber plantation could be continued/treated as agricultural land; th…