Singhai Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India

219 ITR 544Supreme Court of India1996#10850 most cited

What is Singhai Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India authority for?

Income arising from the transfer of agricultural land is considered agricultural income and is not exigible to capital gains tax. This principle extends to compensation received on the requisition of agricultural land and such income should be excluded when calculating book profits under Section 115JA or 115JB.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Singhai Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India · CIT v. All India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd · 219 ITR 544 · agricultural income · capital gains tax · Section 115JB · Section 115JA · book profits · transfer of agricultural land · compensation for requisition of agricultural land

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 11Section 115JBSection 12Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(14)

Issues it is cited on

section 115jabook profitsagricultural incomesection 115jsection 115jbsection 40(a)(ia)section 43bsection 154section 115section 15section 11company

Judgments citing Singhai Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India

Shahnaj, Near Bherudanji Well vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Income Tax Office

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Smt. Shanaj Vs The ITO W/o Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. FPMPS 3570 D Assessee By Shri Aman Saxena Advocate Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT-DR Revenue By Date of hearing 05/10/2024 Date of 01/01/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: DR S. SEETHALAKSHMI , JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 23-08-2024, National Faceless App…

Kilkotagiri and Thirumbadi Plantations Ltd, Calicut vs. The ACIT Circle-2(1), Kozhikode

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

ITA 371/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri R V Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR
Section 115JSection 40Section 43B

…ons should not be taxed invoking sec. 115JB. 4) The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Raja BenoykumarSahas Roy (32 ITR 466), held that income from trees planted and nurtured will be agricultural income. Again, the SC has, in CIT Vs. All India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd, (219 ITR 544) held that compensation received on requisition of agricultural land amounted to agricultural income.lf that be so, such amount has to be excluded for purpose of book profits u/s 115JA. This has been followed by the ITAT, Cochin Bench in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs ACIT, Cochin (ITA NO. 54/COCH/2009) AND in ITA No.77/Coch/2010 dated 29.06.2012 and…

Kilkotagiri and Thirumbadi Plantations Ltd, Calicut vs. The ACIT Circle-2(1), Kozhikode

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

ITA 370/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri R V Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR
Section 115JSection 40Section 43B

…ons should not be taxed invoking sec. 115JB. 4) The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Raja BenoykumarSahas Roy (32 ITR 466), held that income from trees planted and nurtured will be agricultural income. Again, the SC has, in CIT Vs. All India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd, (219 ITR 544) held that compensation received on requisition of agricultural land amounted to agricultural income.lf that be so, such amount has to be excluded for purpose of book profits u/s 115JA. This has been followed by the ITAT, Cochin Bench in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs ACIT, Cochin (ITA NO. 54/COCH/2009) AND in ITA No.77/Coch/2010 dated 29.06.2012 and…

Kilkotagiri and Thirumbadi Plantations Ltd, Calicut vs. The ACIT Circle-2(1), Kozhikode

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

ITA 369/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri R V Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR
Section 115JSection 40Section 43B

…ons should not be taxed invoking sec. 115JB. 4) The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Raja BenoykumarSahas Roy (32 ITR 466), held that income from trees planted and nurtured will be agricultural income. Again, the SC has, in CIT Vs. All India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd, (219 ITR 544) held that compensation received on requisition of agricultural land amounted to agricultural income.lf that be so, such amount has to be excluded for purpose of book profits u/s 115JA. This has been followed by the ITAT, Cochin Bench in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs ACIT, Cochin (ITA NO. 54/COCH/2009) AND in ITA No.77/Coch/2010 dated 29.06.2012 and…

Kautilya Shares and Stocks Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 14(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3884/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(14)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Kautilya Shares and Income Tax Officer Stocks Private Limited Ward-14(2) M-16, Ground Floor Vs. Delhi Main M Block Market Greater Kailash Part-1 New Delhi-110048 PAN:AAACK5431A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Amit Goel, CA Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Respondent by Shri Anshul, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 21/06/2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commi…

M/S Rachana Constructions, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 34/NAG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 11Section 132Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

…of section 2(1A) and thus the same is not exigible to tax. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the following case laws:– 1) ITAT order in ITA No.362/Ju/2010 in the case of Smt. Supriya Kanwar vide order dated 13/05/2014 2) (2001) 247 ITR 150(SC) Singhai Rakesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. 3) (1981) 128 ITR 87(Bom.) Manubhai A. Sheth & Ors. v/s ITO. 6 M/s. Rachana Constructions 5. The learned Counsel for assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) both has referred to enquiry made from NMC under section 133(6) in respect to distanc…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Sicom Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1685/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…ppeal before the hon’ble high court. The tribunal has, in rendering its said decision, relied on the decisions by the apex court in the case of Singhai Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 150 (SC) and CIT v. All India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 544 (SC), holding that the income arising on the transfer of agricultural land is not eligible to capital gains tax, being in the nature of agricultural income. Firstly, as such, there is complete parity of facts, so that we find no reason to take a different view of the matter. Secondly, the Revenue’s objection is technical in nature inasmuch it con…

Sicom Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1522/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…ppeal before the hon’ble high court. The tribunal has, in rendering its said decision, relied on the decisions by the apex court in the case of Singhai Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 150 (SC) and CIT v. All India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 544 (SC), holding that the income arising on the transfer of agricultural land is not eligible to capital gains tax, being in the nature of agricultural income. Firstly, as such, there is complete parity of facts, so that we find no reason to take a different view of the matter. Secondly, the Revenue’s objection is technical in nature inasmuch it con…

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)

…ble at pages 56-58 of the paper-book, the Ld. representative submitted that the Cochin Bench by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Singhai Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 150 and CIT v. All India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 544, submitted that income arising on transfer of agricultural land is not exigible to capital gains tax being in the nature of agricultural income. In fact, according to the Ld. representative, the computation of book profit under Section 115JB 7 I.T.A. No.2067/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.2101/Mds/15 of the Act was raised by the assessee in the assessee’s…

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)

…ble at pages 56-58 of the paper-book, the Ld. representative submitted that the Cochin Bench by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Singhai Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 150 and CIT v. All India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 544, submitted that income arising on transfer of agricultural land is not exigible to capital gains tax being in the nature of agricultural income. In fact, according to the Ld. representative, the computation of book profit under Section 115JB 7 I.T.A. No.2067/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.2101/Mds/15 of the Act was raised by the assessee in the assessee’s…

Singhai Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India (219 ITR 544) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax