PCIT v. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd. (388 ITR 514)

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)

…R 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 assessee to discharge the burden of proving that the lands were agricultural lands. 16. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the lower authorities had clearly fell in error in holding that subject lands are agricultural lands.…

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

…R 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 assessee to discharge the burden of proving that the lands were agricultural lands. 28. The next issue that requires to be determined by us is whether there was an intention on the part of the assessee at the time of purchase of the subject land, to resale these lan…

D. Saivenugopal, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 107/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 22

…before the Tribunal. Moreover, in the website www.tnreginet.net, the status of the above land shows as “residential”. 11 I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/21 & 2417/Chny/19 4.9 So far as case law relied on by the assessee in the case of PCIT v. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd. 388 ITR 514 is concerned, we find that in that case, the land was given on lease for agricultural purposes and the lessee also used the impugned land for agricultural purposes during the interregnum period by providing clear-cut clauses in the lease deed that to use the farm for agricultural purpose only and to farm cultivate manure and manage the farm in a…

Shri D. Saivenugopal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle - 6 (1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2417/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 22

…before the Tribunal. Moreover, in the website www.tnreginet.net, the status of the above land shows as “residential”. 11 I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/21 & 2417/Chny/19 4.9 So far as case law relied on by the assessee in the case of PCIT v. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd. 388 ITR 514 is concerned, we find that in that case, the land was given on lease for agricultural purposes and the lessee also used the impugned land for agricultural purposes during the interregnum period by providing clear-cut clauses in the lease deed that to use the farm for agricultural purpose only and to farm cultivate manure and manage the farm in a…

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

…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 Court in the case of CIT v Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd (388 ITR 514)(Mad.) wherein it was observed that where a land has been classified as agricultural land and such land was not converted into non-agricultural land prior to its sale then it can be concluded that the land retained its character as agricultural land till the time of the sale. After a cumulative consideration of all the relevant facts as above, I…

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)

…The entries in 7/12 extracts of the lands also clearly indicate that majority of the land was under cultivations with only small size of land is uncultivable. In this connection, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd., 388 ITR 514 vide para 6 held as follows :- 19 “7.2 In Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd., the Madras High Court, while dealing with the importance of classification of land in the revenue records, particularly when the said classification is not rebutted, what is the extent to which such a factor will have a decisive influence in considering what constitutes agricu…

PCIT v. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd.

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on