Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT

204 ITR 631Supreme Court of India1993#473 most cited

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.

197

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT · Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim · Section 2(14) · agricultural land definition · capital asset · actual user of land · intention to cultivate · capital gains tax on land sale · exemption for agricultural land · conversion of agricultural land · land character

Also reported as

70 Taxmann 301

Sections most often in play

Section 2(14)Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 54BSection 148Section 63Section 133(6)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)(a)section 56(2)(ix)section 2(14)(iii)section 2(14)(iii)(b)section 45(5a)section 115adsection 63cash found during searchsection 2(1a)section 2(14)section 2(1)section 96

Judgments citing Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT

Venkateswara Hospital, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1769/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: 02.02.2017
Section 2(14)

…and is situated beyond 8 kms from municipal limits and the population is less than 10,000. 3.0 The Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) placing reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim & Ors. :- 3 -: v.CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC) disallowed the claim of the assessee and assessed the sale proceeds as Long term capital gains. The reasoning given by the AO for taxing the LTCG was that the assessee purchased the lands during the year 2005 as agricultural land and the assessee has not declared any agricultural income. The assessee declared only business income in the re…

Niranjan Suresh Harchandrai, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 367/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P.Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi & Vipul ModyFor Respondent: Shri. T.P.Khan
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(24)Section 45

…ultural purposes till the date of sale by the assessee and others. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the assessment order keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC), Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in Fazalbhoy Investment Co P Ltd. vs. CIT (1989) 176 ITR 523 (Bom) The Ld. DR further submitted that in the present case the purchaser has not purchased the said land for genuine agricultural operation as the sale price works out at Rs. 2.34 lacs per guntha i.e. 1000 sq. ft. and that Rs. 2.34 lacs per gunth…

Nihal Suresh Harchandrai, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 365/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P.Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi & Vipul ModyFor Respondent: Shri. T.P.Khan
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(24)Section 45

…ultural purposes till the date of sale by the assessee and others. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the assessment order keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC), Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in Fazalbhoy Investment Co P Ltd. vs. CIT (1989) 176 ITR 523 (Bom) The Ld. DR further submitted that in the present case the purchaser has not purchased the said land for genuine agricultural operation as the sale price works out at Rs. 2.34 lacs per guntha i.e. 1000 sq. ft. and that Rs. 2.34 lacs per gunth…

Mohit Suresh Harchandrai, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 14(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 364/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P.Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi & Vipul ModyFor Respondent: Shri. T.P.Khan
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(24)Section 45

…ultural purposes till the date of sale by the assessee and others. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the assessment order keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC), Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in Fazalbhoy Investment Co P Ltd. vs. CIT (1989) 176 ITR 523 (Bom) The Ld. DR further submitted that in the present case the purchaser has not purchased the said land for genuine agricultural operation as the sale price works out at Rs. 2.34 lacs per guntha i.e. 1000 sq. ft. and that Rs. 2.34 lacs per gunth…

A.Vijayaraghavan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 1379/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr. K.N. Dhandapani, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…the relevant assessment year 2011-12. 3. Reliance was placed in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Nandkumar Agarwal & others vide order dated 19.11.1997, Sarifabibi Mohammed Ibrahim & others vs. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC). 4. The land was sold to a real estate company viz., M/s. Inno Real Pvt. Ltd., and meant to be utilized for non-agricultural purposes. 4 5. The assessee had purchased the land for mere amount of Rs.2.8 lakhs in the year 2005. However, it was sold to the company at an exorbitant price of Rs.1.35 crores. Hence the nature of the land sold ca…

T.S.R.Khannaiyann, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, both the above tax case (appeals) are allowed

ITA 804/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 804/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. Sasikumar, IRS, JCIT

…on of ld. Assessing Officer, no person would have purchased a land at the price at which it was sold, for doing any agricultural operation. Relying on the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Smt. Saarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim and Others vs. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631, the Assessing Officer held that the land sold by the assessee to M/s. Hindustan Educational and Charitable Trust at Othakalmandapam was not agricultural in nature. Ld. Assessing Officer also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. :- 5 -: Siddartha Desai (139 ITR 628). According to him if the yardsticks lai…

M/S. Aerens Developers and Engineers Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5054/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J.S. Reddy Assessment Yea: 2007-08 Aerens Developers & Engineers Ltd., Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Mohindra Tower, Central Circel-8, 2A-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaca2199R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Yea: 2007-08 Aerens R. Infra-Structure Ltd., Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Mohindra Tower, Central Circel-8, 2A-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaca2199R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Department By: Shri R.K. Garg, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 :08.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessees Have Questioned The First Appellate Order On The Following Common Grounds Of Appeals: The Order Of Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Bad In Law & On Facts. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Taxing The Compensation Of Rs. 1 Crore As Revenue Receipt Ignoring The Various Judicial Pronouncements & Submissions Of The Assessee. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Wrongly Rejected The Additional Evidence, I The Shape Of Fard Of Land & Resolution Of The Company, Produced By The As Per The Provision Of Rule 46A.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Garg, DR

…and AO have held that assessee was a non-agriculturist and the intention of the assessee was to commence project on that land and not to start agriculture over 10 there. In this regard the AO and CIT (A) have relied on the decision of Sarifabibi reported in 204 ITR 631 (SC) for holding that cultivation of land is sine-qua-non for treating some land as agriculture land. Finding of CIT(A) in this regard as page no 17 of the CIT(A) order.- 3. In this regard it is submitted that status of an assessee whether he is agriculturist or not is not relevant and what is relevant is the character of land at the time of ent…

DCIT, Chennai vs. S.Amar Narayana Reddy, Chennai

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

ITA 1263/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1263/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri S. Amar Narayana Reddy, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1), Vs. Flat No.912, 19-8-150, Sai Residency, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 121, Bairagipatteda, Tirupati [Presently At A6, M.G. Road, 7Th Floor, Chennai 34. No. 40, 2Nd Main Road, Kasturbai Nagar, Adayar, Chennai. [Pan:Aieps6384D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. B. Nischal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Anita Sumanth, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Tirupati, Dated 23.03.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. In This Appeal, The Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Treating The Amount Of ₹.3,04,01,161/-, Which Is The Margin/Gains To The Assessee On Sale Of Land As Business Is Not Sustainable. Further, The 2

For Appellant: Dr. B. Nischal, JCITFor Respondent: Dr. Anita Sumanth, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…d pertaining to the above referred M/s. Pallava Resorts, which is 90 kms further away from Chennai and even south of Chennai, is not exempt under section 2(14) of the Act. By relying on the decision in the case of Sarifabibi Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. CIT 204 ITR 631 (SC) and applying the factors listed out in that case for determining the applicability of section 2(14) to the assessee’s case, the Assessing Officer has concluded that the lands sold by the assessee cannot be said to be agricultural lands and therefore, the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 2(14) cannot be accepted. 6. On appeal,…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. B. Sudhakar Pai, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 708/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesan, C.A
Section 2(14)

…has Roy Kumar Sahas Roy 32 ITR 466. The constitution bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has 10 considered the meaning of the expression “agricultural land” which was again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim Vs. CIT 204 ITR 631 as under : “On an appeal, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that: Inasmuch as agricultural land is exempted from the purview of the definition of the expression “assets”, it is “impossible to adopt so wide a test as would obviously defeat the purpose of the exemption given”. The idea behind exempting the agricultural land is to encourage…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. Shri. M.R. Anandaram (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1169/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1169 to 1172/Bang/2015 Assessment year : 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Shri M.R. Anandaram (HUF) Income Tax, PAN: AABHM 9819G Circle 6(3)(1), Shri M.R. Kodandaram (HUF) Bengaluru. PAN: AABHM 9893E Shri M.R. Pattabhiram (HUF) PAN: AACHM 7618G Shri M.R. Seetharam (HUF) PAN : AAHHS 7324J ‘Gokula House, Gokula, Bengaluru - 560 054. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS CO Nos.220 to 223/Bang/2015 [in ITA Nos.1169 to 1172/Bang/2015] Assessment year : 2007-08 Shri M.…

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)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2067/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s A.V. Thomas Leather & The Deputy Commissioner of Allied Products Private Limited, v. Income Tax, 64, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Corporate Circle 1(1), Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAACA 6246 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA N…

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)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2067/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s A.V. Thomas Leather & The Deputy Commissioner of Allied Products Private Limited, v. Income Tax, 64, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Corporate Circle 1(1), Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAACA 6246 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA N…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1560/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. A.B. Koli, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A
Section 133(6)Section 2(14)

…and' is not defined in the Act, and now, whether it is agricultural land or not has to be determined by using the tests or methods laid down by the Courts from time to time. 7.7 The Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631/70 Taxman 301 has approved the decision of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Siddharth J. Desai (supra) and has laid down 13 tests or factors which are required to be considered and upon consideration of which, the question whether the land is an agricultural land or not has to be decided or answered. We reproduce the sa…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

ITTA/298/2015HC Telangana05 Nov 2015

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

The Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd

ITTA/175/2015HC Telangana08 Oct 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

ITTA/176/2015HC Telangana08 Oct 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

ITO, Tambaram vs. Geetha Venugopal, Chennai

ITA 636/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.636/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Dasgupta, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. J. Radhakrishnan, Advocate
Section 10(37)Section 2(14)

…sale (the compensation received) of the lands, i.e "2,12,41,412/- as capital gains and brought to tax. While doing so, the Assessing Officer has relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohd. Ibrahim vs. CIT 204 ITR 631 (SC). The Assessing Officer has applied the test and laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and concluded the assessment by treating the lands acquired by the Govt of Tamilnadu are capital assets u/s.2(14) of the Act. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…