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?

197 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)

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 132/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

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…

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

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 126/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…

Swapnil Chandrabhan Kalwane, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Aurangabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1432/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1432/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. Swapnil C. Kalwane, Gajgaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad .......अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan : Arrpk3148B

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148

…rely, non furnishing of details of expenditure incurred on cultivation could not be ground for total rejection of claim of agriculture income. The Tribunal after considering the decision of Apex Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim & Others Vs. CIT (204 ITR 631) held as under: "The land transferred in question is borne in the records of the revenue as agricultural in nature. Regarding the use of the land for agricultural purpose, we find there is lot of dispute. In this regard, the assessee claims that she grew moong and Niligiri. Whereas the vendee of the land gives a statement that he purchased the l…

Sendhabhai Ranchhodbhai Chaudhary, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

In the result, ground number 1 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 580/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh L. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148

…g the first ground of the assessee in which assessee challenged the additions amounting to " 50.51 lakhs being long-term capital from sale of non-agricultural land, we observe that the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Smt. SarifabibiMohd. Ibrahim v CIT 204 ITR 631 (SC) has held that when the land was not an agricultural land at the time of sale, then the income arising from its sale would not be exempt from capital gains tax. In this case, on 28-3-1958 a portion of said plot was converted to non-agricultural purposes but remaining extent continued to be registered as I.T.A No. 580/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 Pag…

Sri K M Bopanna (HUF) vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the following:

ITA/517/2017HC Karnataka16 Aug 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 234ASection 260Section 54F

…held so. With regard to the relief under Section 54F of the Act, he submitted that the 2 ITA No.176/2015 and connected cases decided on 22.07.2022 (para 21) 3 (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC) (para 20) 4 [1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC) (para 22) - 6 - CIT(A) could not have granted the relief unless the same was urged before the Assessing Officer. 9. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 10. Undisputed facts of the case are, the land in question has been converted for Industrial purpose. In the remand Report…

Kalvakuntla Sudhir Rao Karta of Kalvakuntla Venkata Rajeswara Rao, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 419/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan Kumar and Shri B. Shanthi Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: 26/07/2022

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 419/Hyd/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Kalvakuntla Sudhir Rao Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Karta of Kalvakuntla Vs. Hyderabad Venkata Rajeswara Rao (HUF) Hyderabad [PAN No. AADHK2976A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee by: Shri R. Mohan Kumar and Shri B. Shanthi Kumar, ARs Shri K.P.R.R.Murty, DR राज" व "वारा/Revenue by: 26/07/2022 सुनवाई क" तार ख/Dat…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Ayishathu Jailani, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

ITA 708/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250(6)

…al 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. 5.5 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 139 ITR 628 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…