Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT

Mr.P.C.Jose, Cochin vs. DCIT, Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ara Panchayat having been in fact notified u/s. 2(14)(iii) by the Central Government as far back as in 1973. The matter, it may be appreciated, as also sought to be emphasized by the AO with reference to the decision in Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim v. CIT[1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC), also reproducing there-from, is principally factual, to be decided in the conspectus of the case.No wonder, then, the fact of the land being classified as ‘agricultural’ in Revenue records was found not material in the facts of the caseby the Hon’ble Court. Why, the very fact that the land, deemed agricultural and non-agricultural on that b…