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 367,181 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

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…o 755/Bang/2019 Page 34 of 79 otherwise is essentially a question of fact. In coming to a definite conclusion, a number of tests will have to be undertaken as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim v. CIT reported in 204 ITR 631 (SC). The tests prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: (i) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (ii) Whether the land was actually or ordinarily used for agricultural purposes at or about the relevant time? (iii) Whether such user of the land w…

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…o 755/Bang/2019 Page 34 of 79 otherwise is essentially a question of fact. In coming to a definite conclusion, a number of tests will have to be undertaken as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim v. CIT reported in 204 ITR 631 (SC). The tests prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: (i) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (ii) Whether the land was actually or ordinarily used for agricultural purposes at or about the relevant time? (iii) Whether such user of the land w…

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 306/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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 required to be considered and upon consideration of which, the question whether the land is an agricultural land or :- 21 -: ITA Nos.215, 303, 304, 305 & 306/Bang/2020 not…

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 305/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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 required to be considered and upon consideration of which, the question whether the land is an agricultural land or :- 21 -: ITA Nos.215, 303, 304, 305 & 306/Bang/2020 not…

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 304/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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 required to be considered and upon consideration of which, the question whether the land is an agricultural land or :- 21 -: ITA Nos.215, 303, 304, 305 & 306/Bang/2020 not…

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 303/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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 required to be considered and upon consideration of which, the question whether the land is an agricultural land or :- 21 -: ITA Nos.215, 303, 304, 305 & 306/Bang/2020 not…

Shaileshbhai Kalabhai Chaudhary, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 581/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shaurya S. Shukla, Sr.D.R

…T v. Raja Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466. The constitution bench of Supreme Court has considered the meaning of the expression 'agricultural land' which was again considered by the Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631/70 Taxman 301. The following principles laid down: i. The assessment of the land under the land revenue provisions as agricultural land is not the conclusive evidence that the land agricultural land. ii. The use of the land for the agricultural operations and cultivation is pre requisite for classifying land as agricultural land in nature. As suc…

Kantaben Govabhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2020/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shaurya S. Shukla, Sr.D.R

…T v. Raja Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466. The constitution bench of Supreme Court has considered the meaning of the expression 'agricultural land' which was again considered by the Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631/70 Taxman 301. The following principles laid down: i. The assessment of the land under the land revenue provisions as agricultural land is not the conclusive evidence that the land agricultural land. ii. The use of the land for the agricultural operations and cultivation is pre requisite for classifying land as agricultural land in nature. As suc…

Somabhai Motibhai Patel, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2019/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shaurya S. Shukla, Sr.D.R

…T v. Raja Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466. The constitution bench of Supreme Court has considered the meaning of the expression 'agricultural land' which was again considered by the Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631/70 Taxman 301. The following principles laid down: i. The assessment of the land under the land revenue provisions as agricultural land is not the conclusive evidence that the land agricultural land. ii. The use of the land for the agricultural operations and cultivation is pre requisite for classifying land as agricultural land in nature. As suc…

Babubhai Motibhai Chaudhary, Gandhinagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2018/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shaurya S. Shukla, Sr.D.R

…T v. Raja Binoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466. The constitution bench of Supreme Court has considered the meaning of the expression 'agricultural land' which was again considered by the Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631/70 Taxman 301. The following principles laid down: i. The assessment of the land under the land revenue provisions as agricultural land is not the conclusive evidence that the land agricultural land. ii. The use of the land for the agricultural operations and cultivation is pre requisite for classifying land as agricultural land in nature. As suc…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Renaissance Cultivation LLP, Pune

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

ITA 1416/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1416/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Renaissance Pune. Cultivation Llp, Pastakiya House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 Pan : Aaofr7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Entire Facts Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…payment of taxes. 4. The Assessing Officer also placing reliance on the following decisions held that it is business transactions and, accordingly, assessed to tax as business income of Rs.86,41,95,095/- :- (i) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim & Others vs. CIT, 204 ITR 631 (SC). (ii) CIT vs. V.A. Trivedi, 172 ITR 95 (Bom.). (iii) Gopal C. Sharma vs. CIT, 209 ITR 946 (Bom.). 7 Abhijit Gaikwad, Shubhash Gaikwad and Ajit Gaikwad vs. DCIT, Central 2(1), Pune, ITA No.699, 700 & 701/PN/2013 (ITAT Pune). (v) Jitendra Sonigara vs. ACIT, Cir-9, Pune, ITA No.849/PN/2012 (ITAT Pune). (vi) Hanmantram Murlidhar & Company Vs. I…

Mr K. P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 977/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…ubject land is agricultural or otherwise is essentially a question of fact. In coming to a definite conclusion, a number of tests will have to be undertaken as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim v. CIT reported in 204 ITR 631 (SC). The tests prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: (i) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (ii) Whether the land was actually or ordinarily used for agricultural purposes at or about the relevant time? (iii) Whether such user of the land w…

Vinod Parasmal Jain, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 3, Thane

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

ITA 1883/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vinod Parasmal Jain, Dcit, Circle 3, Thane, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle 1302/A, Vikas Palms, Dr. Vs. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Civil Industrial Estate, Road No. 16Z, Hospital, Thane(W)-400 604. Thane-400 601 Pan No. Aaopj 9371 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 2(14)

…al land' is not defined in the Act, and now, whether it is agricultural land or not has got to be determined by using the tests or methods laid down by the Courts from time to time. 44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (204 ITR 631) has approved the decision of a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siddharth J. Desai (1982) 28 CTR (Guj) 148 : (1983) 139 ITR 628 (Guj) 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 go…

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2223/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

…ubject land is agricultural or otherwise is essentially a question of fact. In coming to a definite conclusion, a number of tests will have to be undertaken as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim v. CIT reported in 204 ITR 631 (SC). The tests prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 Page 36 of 82 (i) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (ii) Whether the land was actually or ordinarily used for agricultural purposes at or about the releva…

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2222/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

…ubject land is agricultural or otherwise is essentially a question of fact. In coming to a definite conclusion, a number of tests will have to be undertaken as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim v. CIT reported in 204 ITR 631 (SC). The tests prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 Page 36 of 82 (i) Whether the land was classified in the revenue records as agricultural and whether it was subject to the payment of land revenue? (ii) Whether the land was actually or ordinarily used for agricultural purposes at or about the releva…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Malabar Estates & Industries Ltd

ITA/179/2014HC Kerala28 Oct 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 260A

…criterion for attracting the expression of agricultural land. The Tribunal examined the circumstances in the leading case relied on by the parties, namely Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat1, and found that the 1 (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC) I.T.A. No.179/2014 -9- schedule property in Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim case was situated within the municipal limits of Surat city. The Tribunal noted that in the said reported case the land was not under cultivation for over four years preceding the sale. The assessee in the said reported case applied to the competent authority…

Shri Bhupinder Kumar Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1767/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…

Smt Pooja Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1766/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…

Shri Gaurav Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1765/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…

Shri Bhupinder Kumar Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5378/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…illage Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered i…