What is Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT authority for?

The determinative test for whether land is agricultural land or a capital asset is its actual user for agricultural purposes, not merely ownership. An explicit intention to stop cultivation or convert the land to non-agricultural use can cause it to lose its agricultural character, making its sale proceeds chargeable to capital gains tax.

How many judgments cite Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT?

191 judgments on BharatTax cite Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT (204 ITR 631), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 2(14), Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 54B, Section 148.

Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT (204 ITR 631)

SUJATA PRAKASH JAWALE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7572/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 7572/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sujata Prakash Jawale Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 42(3)(4) 5/8, A/9, Trimurti Apartment Sector – 8, Phase – 2 Nerul (West) Navi Mumbai - 400706 [PAN: ADAPJ3541L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mahaveer Jain, A/R Revenue by Shri Limbasiya Kavan Nareshkumar, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: The present appeal arises out of the order dated 12/09/2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of I…

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 149/DDN/2025[2106-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2106-2017

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54E

…evant to year 2011 not relevant to AY 2014-15 and 2015-16. On the contrary, documents furnished by assessee have been arbitrarily brushed aside. At this juncture, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. CIT 204 ITR 631 (SC), which has laid down the principles to be followed in deciding the question as to what can be construed as “Agricultural land”, relevant extracts are reproduced below: “10. The first decision of this Court which considered the meaning of the expression 'agricultural land' is in CIT v . Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466. But the qu…

DHANANJAY ESTATE AND REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3808/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandhananjay Estate & Reality Vs. Ito Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Cts 40-44, S. V. Road, Goregaon 400 020 (W), Mumbai-400 104. Pan: Aabcd8868M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 63

…s in use as agricultural activities. The AO should have enquired into and verified the claim of agricultural income in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the Dhananjay Estate and Reality Private Limited case of Sarifabibi Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. CIT [204 ITR 631 (1993)]. To this extent, it can be held that the assessment order suffers from infirmity being erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue for allowing ineligible claimed of exempt income of Rs.3,74,91,265/- u/s. 2(14) of the Act. Hence, the assessment order dated 06/09/2022 is hereby partly set aside to the file of the AO to inquir…

MRS. SNEHLATA GOEL,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1793/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri S K Tulsian and Lata Goel

Section 133(6)Section 2(14)Section 250

…oses and there was a likelihood that the land will be used for non-agricultural purposes soon after its transfer, are also very important facts.  Based on the above factual position and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sarifa Bibi Mohmmad Ibrahim [1993] 204 ITR 631/73 Taxmann 301 (Supreme Court) and various other judicial pronouncement of the High Court, The AO concluded that the sold parcel of land is a capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act and is chargeable to tax under Mrs. Snehlata Goel head Income from capital gains and made an addition of Rs. 5,19,99,960/- to the income of the appel…

ASHOK SOMNATH SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1) NASHIK, NASHIK MAHARASHTRA

ITA 2154/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2154/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Somnath Sonawane, Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik Tara Kutir Bunglow, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik-422005 Vs. Pan : Alops7734A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual) Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23-07-2025 Date Of 30-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 54BSection 63

…ment and appellant had received amount as per the rate of agricultural land? Ground 8- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO and CIT-A is justified in applying Judgement of Hon SC in the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim & Others 204 ITR 631(SC) to appellant case where all facts are distinct and judgement is not applicable? Ground 9- The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands. In the view of the above grounds and in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Appellant prays yo…

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. (Thr.VC)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

…itz Infracon India LLP and hence the same was deemed that was not meant to be used as agricultural land. The assessing officer in the assessment order of his brother (Rajkumar Yadav) has relied upon decision of Smt Sarifabibi Mohammed Ibrahim v. CIT(A) (1193) 204 ITR 631 (SC). In this regard it is submitted that case law relied upon the AO is not at all applicable to the case of assessee or his brother, as in the case relied upon by the AO the land in question was situated within the municipal limits i.e., within distance of one kilometre from the Surat railway station, and same was not an agricultural land only…

MR MANISH JAGDISH BAJAJ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-41, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2758/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Manish Jagdish Bajaj Pcit-41, Mumbai Flat No. 605,606, 6Th Floor, Farm Room No. 541, Kautilya Manor Chs Adarsh Colony, Marve Vs. Bhava, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Road, Malad (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400064 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan No. Aghpb 6661 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R A Dhyani, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…harvesting, and subsequent operations like weeding and tending to crops, are integral components. In g to crops, are integral components. In g to crops, are integral components. In Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT [(1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC)], it was [(1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC)], it was held that the determinative test is the actual user of land for held that the determinative test is the actual user of land for held that the determinative test is the actual user of land for agricultural purposes and not merely the ownership thereof. agricultural purposes and not merely the ownersh…

CLAYKING MINERALS LLP,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5, MEHSANA

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

ITA 82/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR

Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.82/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Clayking Minerals LLP, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 69, Sardar Patel Society, Ward-5, Bhaupura, Kadi, Mehsana, Mehsana Gujarat-382715 [PAN No.AAMFC6828Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hem Chhajed, AR Respondent by: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR 30.04.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 27.05.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the ord…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANICKAM GAUTAMAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2753/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2753/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Rajamanickam Gautam, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Vs. No.65, Old No.46, Chennai. Defence Colony, Nandambakkam, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Apgpg 6055G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 45(3)

…a partner to the firm, irrespective of its nature and characteristics at the time of such transfer. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631 which is paramount on this intriguing subject, had rendered that when the intention to stop cultivation is profoundly explicit, income arising from sale of such land was chargeable to capital gains tax. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that the asset had lost its character as agricultural land once the partners intended to co…

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

…were situated in area which is highly developed. ii. The lands were sold to a real estate company as a single parcel of land. iii. It is submitted that the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohammed Ibrahim v. CIT [1003] 204 ITR 631 outweigh against the assessee. iv. Finally the learned CIT- DR placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sreedhar Ashok Kumar v. CIT (ITA No. 251/2024 dated P.C. Jose 11.12.2017) to submit that mere categorization of land as agricultural in Revenue record was not sufficient to raise the presumption…

ACIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR vs. CHINRJI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

19. As a result, this appeal filed by the department deserves to be

ITA 244/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal.

For Appellant: Sh. B. P. Mundra, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 19Section 20Section 45Section 54B

…s or evidence. In so far as the presence of school appurtenant to the building is concerned, the school is not only appellant's land. It would be pertinent note the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim V. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631. Amongst the primary tests considered by the Hon'ble Court for the classification of the capital assets as agricultural land were: What was the classification of land in revenue records; Whether it was subject to payment of land revenue, Whether the land was actually or ordinarily used for agricultural purposes at or about the relevant time etc.…

BHANUDAS VITTHAL MHASURKAR,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1264/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 53ASection 54BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Bhanudas Vitthal Mhasurkar ITO, Ward-2(5), Pune Mukai Wadi, Pirangut Paud Road, Vs. Mulshi – 412115 PAN: CDZPM6587J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 12-11-2024 Date of pronouncement : 19-11-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.09.2023 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year…

MR DNYANESHWAR BABURAO KATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 432/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.432/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Pune. Kathe, Janori Dhawa, 10Th Mail Road, Dindori, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Bbppk3199D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit(A) Has Erred & Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.31,58,740/- By Treating The Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In The Saving Bank Account Of Dena Bank As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Cash Deposited In The Bank Was Out Of Agriculture Sale Proceeds. The Appellant Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 148Section 3Section 50CSection 54F

…the same. Ld. DR relied on the following case laws in support of their contentions :- (i) Abhijit Subhas Gaikwad vs. DCIT, 60 taxmann.com 259 (Pune – Trib.). (ii) Gopal C. Sharma vs. CIT, 209 ITR 946 (Bombay). 10 (iii) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. CIT, 204 ITR 631 (SC). (iv) CIT vs. V.A. Trivedi, 172 ITR 95 (Bombay). (v) CIT vs. Siddharth J. Desai, 139 ITR 628 (Gujarat). 10. We have heard Ld. Counsel from both the sides and perused the material available on record including additional evidences furnished by the assessee and case laws relied on by both the parties. We find that the assessee has challenged a…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAJA BABU NIMMATURI, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 701/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

…idered the relevant evidence filed by the assessee in light of certain judicial precedents considered by the learned CIT (A) including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (1993) 204 ITR 631. Agricultural land in India has been defined u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 2(14) of the Act, agricultural land in India is any land not being land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or a Cantonment Board which has a population of not less than 10,000 or in any area within the distan…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAMESH BABU NIMMATOORI, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 700/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

…idered the relevant evidence filed by the assessee in light of certain judicial precedents considered by the learned CIT (A) including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (1993) 204 ITR 631. Agricultural land in India has been defined u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 2(14) of the Act, agricultural land in India is any land not being land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or a Cantonment Board which has a population of not less than 10,000 or in any area within the distan…

RAJA BABU NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 621/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

…idered the relevant evidence filed by the assessee in light of certain judicial precedents considered by the learned CIT (A) including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (1993) 204 ITR 631. Agricultural land in India has been defined u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 2(14) of the Act, agricultural land in India is any land not being land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or a Cantonment Board which has a population of not less than 10,000 or in any area within the distan…

SULOCHANA NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 620/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

…idered the relevant evidence filed by the assessee in light of certain judicial precedents considered by the learned CIT (A) including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (1993) 204 ITR 631. Agricultural land in India has been defined u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 2(14) of the Act, agricultural land in India is any land not being land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or a Cantonment Board which has a population of not less than 10,000 or in any area within the distan…

RAMESH BABU NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 619/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

…idered the relevant evidence filed by the assessee in light of certain judicial precedents considered by the learned CIT (A) including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (1993) 204 ITR 631. Agricultural land in India has been defined u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 2(14) of the Act, agricultural land in India is any land not being land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or a Cantonment Board which has a population of not less than 10,000 or in any area within the distan…

YASHODA NIMMATURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 618/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

…idered the relevant evidence filed by the assessee in light of certain judicial precedents considered by the learned CIT (A) including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (1993) 204 ITR 631. Agricultural land in India has been defined u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 2(14) of the Act, agricultural land in India is any land not being land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or a Cantonment Board which has a population of not less than 10,000 or in any area within the distan…

MANJUSHA NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 594/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

…idered the relevant evidence filed by the assessee in light of certain judicial precedents considered by the learned CIT (A) including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (1993) 204 ITR 631. Agricultural land in India has been defined u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 2(14) of the Act, agricultural land in India is any land not being land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or a Cantonment Board which has a population of not less than 10,000 or in any area within the distan…

Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT

What is Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT

SUJATA PRAKASH JAWALE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

DHANANJAY ESTATE AND REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

MRS. SNEHLATA GOEL,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

ASHOK SOMNATH SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1) NASHIK, NASHIK MAHARASHTRA

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

MR MANISH JAGDISH BAJAJ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-41, MUMBAI

CLAYKING MINERALS LLP,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5, MEHSANA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANICKAM GAUTAMAN, CHENNAI

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

ACIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR vs. CHINRJI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

BHANUDAS VITTHAL MHASURKAR,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), PUNE, PUNE

MR DNYANESHWAR BABURAO KATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), PUNE, PUNE

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAJA BABU NIMMATURI, HYDERABAD

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAMESH BABU NIMMATOORI, HYDERABAD

RAJA BABU NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

SULOCHANA NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

RAMESH BABU NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

YASHODA NIMMATURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

MANJUSHA NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD