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 367,164 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

Shobha Singh, Shahdol Madhya Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Shahdol Madhya Pradesh

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

ITA 115/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ayush Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR
Section 2(14)(iii)Section 282

…rm Capital Gain on the sale of agriculture land, which is not permissible in the eye of law. 2 Shobha Singh 5. That, the learned Assessee Officer has erred relying on the case law Smt. SarifabibiMohmed Ibrahim v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC), which is not applicable in the present case on facts and law. 6. That, the order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the learned CIT(A) is without application of mind and simply reiterated the order passed by learned Assessee Officer. 7. That, the impugned orders passed by the Department is contrary to sec. 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.…

Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 581/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, I.T.O. Ward-2, B-9/83, Near Ambaji Temple, Vapi. Vs. Haria Hospital Road, Gidc, Vapi (Gujarat)-396395. Pan No. Acppk 1953 R Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 50C(2)

…or, Tal Choryasi, Dist- Surat on the ground that both these pieces of land are located in Surat city does not amount to the exempt assets u/s 2(14) of the income tax act in view of Honourable Supreme Court judgement in the case of Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim - 204 ITR 631. Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia Vs ITO 3. Alternatively, and without prejudice to our ground no- 1 and 2, following ground is raised :- That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, has grossly erred to uphold action of the AO in not following procedure laic down u/s 50C(2) of the act, especially, when the appellant…

George Stanley, Thiruvalla vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

ITA 587/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Telma Raju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…prove it’s claims, needless to add, is on the assessee. This represents well-settled law, for which we refer to some judicially binding precedents, viz. CIT vs. Gemini Pictures Circuit P. Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 43 (SC); Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim vs. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC); G.M. Omer Khan vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 269 (SC); CWT vs. Officer-in-Charge (CW), Paigah [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC); Kalpetta Estates Ltd. vs. CIT [1990] 185 ITR 318 (Ker), quoting, for authority, from the last: ‘Whether a piece of land is agricultural in character or a capital asset is largely a question of fact which should be determined by th…

DCIT, Cochin vs. Shri M George ( Mukkadayil Joseph George), Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

…saction, as far as he is concerned, ITANo. 525/Coch/2011 (AY 2006-07) Dy. CIT v. M.J. George must necessarily be ascertained with reference to the purpose for which the asset was agreed to be transferred by him. (B) Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim vs. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC): The judgement is a classical example of the Hon'ble Court making an assessment, on facts, as to whether the land classified as an agricultural land in the Revenue records, land revenue in respect of which stood in fact paid upto 1968-69, i.e., just prior to the execution of sale deeds in May, 1969 after obtaining permission in April, 1969,…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Akola Circle, Akola vs. Dsd Progresive Associate, Buldhana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

ITA 387/NAG/2019[206-17]Status: FixedITAT Nagpur13 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.387/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Assistant Dsd Progressive Associate, Commissioner Of V 11, Dsd Mall, Near Tahsil Income Tax, S Office, Chaitanya Wadi, Akola Circle, Akola – Buldhana – 443001. 444001. Pan: Aaifp 3358 A Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Mukesh Agrawal – Ca Revenue By Shri Kailash Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Acit, Akola Circle Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-1, Nagpur Dated 09.09.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nagpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 8,33,55,350/- Made To The Returned Income As Business Income Arising Out Of Sale Of Agriculture Land Held As Stock In Trade In The Books Of Account By The Assessee. Dsc Progressive Associate [R]

Section 131

…ence to so hold. 6. In reaching the above conclusion and on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has gravely erred in drawing support from decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (204 ITR 631) as the tests laid down in that decision are in a completely different context and on completely distinguishable facts. 7. Any other grounds to be raised with due permission of the Hon’ble ITAT. 2 DSC Progressive Associate [R] Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The assessee is a firm. The assessee…

Smt. Swamiappan Punithavathi, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 440/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 132Section 2(14)

…ITA No.437 to 440/Bang/2023 Swamiappan & Ors. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Swamiappan Gurukrupa Service Station Deputy Commissioner of Income- No.58/1, Singasandra tax Hosur Road Vs. Central Circle-1(1) Bengaluru 560 014 Bengaluru PAN NO : ABKPS1272M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2019-20 Swamiappan Anand Kumar No.15, 100Ft. Ring Road Deputy Commissioner of Income- BTM Layout tax Vs. Bengaluru 560 068 Central Circle-1(1) Bengaluru PAN NO : AFSPK5500N APPELLANT…

Sri. Swamiappan Arul Kumar, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 439/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 132Section 2(14)

…ITA No.437 to 440/Bang/2023 Swamiappan & Ors. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Swamiappan Gurukrupa Service Station Deputy Commissioner of Income- No.58/1, Singasandra tax Hosur Road Vs. Central Circle-1(1) Bengaluru 560 014 Bengaluru PAN NO : ABKPS1272M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2019-20 Swamiappan Anand Kumar No.15, 100Ft. Ring Road Deputy Commissioner of Income- BTM Layout tax Vs. Bengaluru 560 068 Central Circle-1(1) Bengaluru PAN NO : AFSPK5500N APPELLANT…

Sri. Swamiappan Anand Kumar, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 438/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 132Section 2(14)

…ITA No.437 to 440/Bang/2023 Swamiappan & Ors. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Swamiappan Gurukrupa Service Station Deputy Commissioner of Income- No.58/1, Singasandra tax Hosur Road Vs. Central Circle-1(1) Bengaluru 560 014 Bengaluru PAN NO : ABKPS1272M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2019-20 Swamiappan Anand Kumar No.15, 100Ft. Ring Road Deputy Commissioner of Income- BTM Layout tax Vs. Bengaluru 560 068 Central Circle-1(1) Bengaluru PAN NO : AFSPK5500N APPELLANT…

Sri. Swamiappan, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 437/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 132Section 2(14)

…ITA No.437 to 440/Bang/2023 Swamiappan & Ors. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Swamiappan Gurukrupa Service Station Deputy Commissioner of Income- No.58/1, Singasandra tax Hosur Road Vs. Central Circle-1(1) Bengaluru 560 014 Bengaluru PAN NO : ABKPS1272M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2019-20 Swamiappan Anand Kumar No.15, 100Ft. Ring Road Deputy Commissioner of Income- BTM Layout tax Vs. Bengaluru 560 068 Central Circle-1(1) Bengaluru PAN NO : AFSPK5500N APPELLANT…

Dr. Hisamuddin Papa, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 787/CHNY/2022[ 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.786 & 787/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dr. Hisamuddin Papa, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 424/786, Anna Salai, Mount Road, Income Tax, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Ajupp4054E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Both Dated 14.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By Three Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petitions For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of Affidavits, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)

…ble power of attorney in favour of the purchaser to enable him to sell the property upon development. 15. In the said decision, reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. CIT reported in [1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC), which decision was relied on by the Revenue to state that the burden of proof to show that the land is an agricultural land is always on the assessee, who seeks exemption under Section 3 of the Act because, the Revenue cannot be expected to produce negative evidence. This decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, as the a…

Dr. Hisamuddin Papa, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 786/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.786 & 787/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dr. Hisamuddin Papa, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 424/786, Anna Salai, Mount Road, Income Tax, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Ajupp4054E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Both Dated 14.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By Three Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petitions For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of Affidavits, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)

…ble power of attorney in favour of the purchaser to enable him to sell the property upon development. 15. In the said decision, reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. CIT reported in [1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC), which decision was relied on by the Revenue to state that the burden of proof to show that the land is an agricultural land is always on the assessee, who seeks exemption under Section 3 of the Act because, the Revenue cannot be expected to produce negative evidence. This decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, as the a…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jabalpur vs. Shri Deepak Singh Banafer, Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 92/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Sh. L.L. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 92/JAB/2019 (Asst. Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer, vs. Deepak Singh Banafer, Ward-1(1), Jabalpur H.No. 2001, Badi Ukhari Road, Jabalpur, (MP) [PAN: ALYPB0867H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Sh. Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR Assessee by : Sh. L.L. Sharma, Advocate Date of hearing : 14/10/2022 Date of pronouncement : 11/01/2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Revenue agitating the Order dated 30/09/2019 by the Commiss…

Sri K R Udaya Kumar, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 525/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234A

…l land' 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. 9.7. 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 Page 9 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 t…

Shri Tushar Jagmohan Kamthe, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 56/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviand Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.56/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Tushar Jagmohan Kamthe, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.6, Shiv Complex, V Ward-14(4), Pune. Kondhwa, Pune – 411048. S Pan: Amepk 2042 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Pune Dated 15.10.2019For The A.Y. 2013-14Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned A.O. Erred In Not Treating The Land As Agriculture Land By Disregarding Appellant’S Contention & Thereby Further Erred In Denying Exemption Claimed U/S 54B For Sum Of Rs.55,46,892/-. Your Appellant Prays For Appropriate Relief.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Sold A Land Along His Family Members Admeasuring 80 H.75R Situated At Yewlewadi, Tal.

Section 250Section 54B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.56/PUN/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Tushar Jagmohan Kamthe, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.6, Shiv Complex, V Ward-14(4), Pune. Kondhwa, Pune – 411048. s PAN: AMEPK 2042 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod Shingte – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 28/10/2022 Date of pronouncement 01/11/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appe…

Shirish M Dalvi, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4640/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, DCIT Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1st floor, Zojwala 3rd floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AADPD 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4th floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1st floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Comp…

DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shirish M Dalvi, Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4317/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, DCIT Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1st floor, Zojwala 3rd floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AADPD 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4th floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1st floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Comp…

ACIT, Ncc - 11 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Chennai

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

ITA 302/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Income Tax, No. 196, Govindappa Naicken Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aavps4928E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advdocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erroneously Held That The Assessee Had Not Claimed Exemption U/S.10(37) [P.8.2] Though The Assessee, Vide His Letter Dated 26-12-2018 Stated "The Compensation Of Rs.7,62,40,126/- Received Was Claimed Exempt U/S.10(37), However, It Was Erroneously Omitted To Be Mentioned In The Return Of Income Filed."

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advdocate
Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 34Section 45Section 57

…ter ring road project was commenced in the same year and hence the assessee could not have carried out any agricultural activity on the said land. 5. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the ruling of Apex Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim [1993] 204 ITR 631 [SC] and the ruling of jurisdictional High Court in the case of M.S. Srinivasa Naicker vs. ITO [2007] 292 ITR 481 [Mad] & T.S.M.O.Mohamed Othuman vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 480 [Mad] which is in favour of the revenue. 6. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of the Apex Court " Statutory interest under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act…

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

…was in fact carrying on agricultural activities. The learned CIT (A) while deciding the issue against the assessee has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, reported in 204 ITR 631 according to which mere mention of land as agricultural land in the revenue record is not sufficient for determining the true characteristics of the land i.e. agriculture or otherwise. Since the assessee in the instant case failed to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the revenue authorities and to our satisfaction that the income…

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

…was in fact carrying on agricultural activities. The learned CIT (A) while deciding the issue against the assessee has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, reported in 204 ITR 631 according to which mere mention of land as agricultural land in the revenue record is not sufficient for determining the true characteristics of the land i.e. agriculture or otherwise. Since the assessee in the instant case failed to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the revenue authorities and to our satisfaction that the income…

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 133/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

…was in fact carrying on agricultural activities. The learned CIT (A) while deciding the issue against the assessee has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, reported in 204 ITR 631 according to which mere mention of land as agricultural land in the revenue record is not sufficient for determining the true characteristics of the land i.e. agriculture or otherwise. Since the assessee in the instant case failed to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the revenue authorities and to our satisfaction that the income…