Rajkot-1 v. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta

409 ITR 196High Court2018#8127 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Judgments citing Rajkot-1 v. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. DHARAM SINGH, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1839/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshito, Vs. Dharam Singh, Ward-1(1), 604, Sector-14, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Actps5801J Assessee By : Shri Vibhor Garg, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 147Section 148Section 6

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Vs. Dharam Singh, Ward-1(1), 604, Sector-14, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ACTPS5801J Assessee by : Shri Vibhor Garg, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 09/01/2026 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.1839/Del/2024 for AY 2014-15, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in sh…

BHADRABALA DHIMANTRAI JOSHI,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.126/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner of बनाम/ 6th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAZPJ 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant by Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-DR सुन…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEEPAK JYOTIPRASAD CHIRIPAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 566/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 63

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2014-15 The ACIT, Deepak Jyotiprasad Central Circle-2(1), Chiripal, 283 Chiripal, Ahmedabad Vs New Cloth Market O/s (Appellant) Raipur Gate Ahmedabad-380002 PAN: AARPA2982Q (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 09-07-2025 Date of pronouncement : 03-09-2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 30-01- 2025 passed by CIT(A)-12, Ahm…

SMT. ANARO DEVI,ALWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 341/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUn dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Anaro Devi cuke The Income Tax Officer, Alwar. W/o Sh. Madan Lal, Post Baghana, Vs. Village- Kasimpur, Tehsil- Kotkasim, Alwar. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:BSAPD0291F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Tarun Mittal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue…

SHRI D. KUMAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 8 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2223/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri. Bhagavath Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’, "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA.G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. 2223/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment year :2016-2017. Shri. D. Kumar, 85, Balaji Nagar 3rd Street, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Alwarthirunagar, Non Corporate Ward 8(3) Chennai 600 087. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AQFPK 0646R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. Bhagavath Krishnan, Adv ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : S…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI SHARAD GOEL, RAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 93/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 250(4)Section 45(3)

…The three objections raised against the findings recorded by the Tribunal since are without merit, the substantial questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. (ii) PCIT Vs Heena Bai Bhadresh Mehta (Gujarat HC) reported in (2018) 409 ITR 196 (Guj), wherein it was concluded by the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court that : “What was the intention of purchaser cannot be the determinative factor to treat the profit earned by the assessee on sale of agricultural land as business income.” CIT Vs. Dr. N Rangabashyam, reported in (2017) 99 (ii) CCH 185 (Chen HC), wherein it was concluded by the Hon’b…

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)

…15. The mere fact that the assessee company made huge amount of profit cannot be ground to treat the profit arising on sale of 22 agricultural land as “business income” as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta, 409 ITR 196 (Guj.). The relevant observations vide para 9 of the said judgement are as under : “9. As observed hereinabove, the land was sold as an agricultural land and in fact, what was sold was agriculture land. What was the intention of the purchaser cannot be the determinative factor to treat the profit earned by the assessee on sale of agriculture land…

VINOD PARASMAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 3, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for a statistical purposes

ITA 1883/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vinod Parasmal Jain, Dcit, Circle 3, Thane, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle 1302/A, Vikas Palms, Dr. Vs. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Civil Industrial Estate, Road No. 16Z, Hospital, Thane(W)-400 604. Thane-400 601 Pan No. Aaopj 9371 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 2(14)

…of his contention relied on the Vinod Parasmal Jain 10 decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Dhable Bobde, Kale, Lute & Chaudhari, 202 ITR 98 (Bom) and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta 409 ITR 196. 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that it was onus of the assessee to produce so-called farmer Shri Rakesh B. Kulkarni for verification by the Assessing Officer. The assessee cannot shift this responsibility on the Assessing Officer. According to him, the asse…

MR. SUBHASH HARI GODE,THANE vs. ITO WARD 2 (4), KALYAN

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

ITA 1708/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1708/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2015-16) Mr. Subhash Hari Gode बिधम/ Ito, Ward -2(4) Sakhroli Post Atgaon Tal- Kalyan. Vs. Shahapura Dist- Thane- 421301. Pan No: Bllpg0668M

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 2(14)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1708/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2015-16) Mr. Subhash Hari Gode बिधम/ ITO, Ward -2(4) Sakhroli Post Atgaon Tal- Kalyan. Vs. Shahapura Dist- Thane- 421301. PAN NO: BLLPG0668M & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1769/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बिधम/ Mr. Dinesh Subhash Gode ITO, Ward-2(1) 2nd Floor Mohan Plaza Sakhroli Post Atgaon Tal- Vs. Shahapura Dist- Thane- Wayle Nagar Khadkhpada, 421301. Kalyan-421301. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. :…

DEEPAK JYOTIPRASAD CHIRIPAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 124/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Nahta, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Convened through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 124/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Deepak Jyotiprasad बनाम/ The Dy. Commissioner of Chiripal Income Tax, Vs. 283, New Cloth Market, Circle – 3(1)(1), O/s. Raipur Gate, Raipur, Ahmedabad Ahmedabd - 380002 & The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AARPA2982Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5460/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…ham Constructions Co. Vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Hyderabad [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad – Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2011] 335 ITR 77 (Delhi) 13. Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Rajkot-1 Vs. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta [2018] 409 ITR 196 (Gujarat) IV. Gain from sale of land could not be taxed as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade, merely because of short period of holding 14. Tulla Veerender Vs. ACIT, Range-6 [2013] 144 ITD 440 (Hyderabad – Trib.) V. Exemption u/s 2(14) is available even when sale of the agricultural land takes place on agreement to sell 15. CIT, Me…

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5348/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…ham Constructions Co. Vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Hyderabad [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad – Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2011] 335 ITR 77 (Delhi) 13. Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Rajkot-1 Vs. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta [2018] 409 ITR 196 (Gujarat) IV. Gain from sale of land could not be taxed as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade, merely because of short period of holding 14. Tulla Veerender Vs. ACIT, Range-6 [2013] 144 ITD 440 (Hyderabad – Trib.) V. Exemption u/s 2(14) is available even when sale of the agricultural land takes place on agreement to sell 15. CIT, Me…

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4136/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…ham Constructions Co. Vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Hyderabad [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad – Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2011] 335 ITR 77 (Delhi) 13. Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Rajkot-1 Vs. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta [2018] 409 ITR 196 (Gujarat) IV. Gain from sale of land could not be taxed as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade, merely because of short period of holding 14. Tulla Veerender Vs. ACIT, Range-6 [2013] 144 ITD 440 (Hyderabad – Trib.) V. Exemption u/s 2(14) is available even when sale of the agricultural land takes place on agreement to sell 15. CIT, Me…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2802/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…ham Constructions Co. Vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Hyderabad [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad – Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2011] 335 ITR 77 (Delhi) 13. Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Rajkot-1 Vs. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta [2018] 409 ITR 196 (Gujarat) IV. Gain from sale of land could not be taxed as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade, merely because of short period of holding 14. Tulla Veerender Vs. ACIT, Range-6 [2013] 144 ITD 440 (Hyderabad – Trib.) V. Exemption u/s 2(14) is available even when sale of the agricultural land takes place on agreement to sell 15. CIT, Me…

Rajkot-1 v. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta (409 ITR 196) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax