Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. v. ACIT

335 ITR 77High Court2011#9200 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 42ASection 43Section 48Section 49Section 50

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)section 250nfacdocument

Judgments citing Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. v. ACIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. AMIRA APPARELS LTD, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4473/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4473/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Income Tax Officer, Amira Apparels Ltd. Room No.375, Central Revenue Building, Vs. 1/16, East Patel Nagar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaca2992A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 250

…case law it was averred that agricultural operational need not be carried out and only the land should be capable of sustaining agriculture for the same to be identified as being agricultural in nature. ii) Hindustan Industrial Resources Limited reported in 335 ITR 77 (Del.). Through this case law it was argued that the classification of the land of the District Collector would be the determining factor. The Ld. AR also relied on several other case laws to canvass the point that there could be no capital gains of agricultural land. In the end the Ld. AR read out the relevant portion from the impugned order a…

AHAMEDPILLAI AHAMEDKUTTY,ERNAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 603/COCH/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

…following cases: - (i) Harsha V. Milani v. JCIT reported in 111 TTJ 310 (Pune) (ii) DCIT v. M.Kalyan Chakravarthy ITA No.729/Hyd/13 dated 24th October, 2014. (iii) Lovleen Singhal v. DCIT reported in 111 TTJ 326. (iv) Hindustan Industrial Resources Vs ACIT- 335 ITR 77(Del) 7. Besides these above case laws, there are so many other cases, wherein it has been held that if the character of land is agricultural in nature, then the compensation received in lieu of such land is exempt. Therefore, we are of the view that the lower authorities are not correct in discarding the claim of the assessee. Since we have alrea…

MEENU ARYA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), HAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargmeenu Arya, Vs. Ito, Ch. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam Ward-3(4), Rdc, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad Hapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abcpa7903P

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 2(14)Section 45Section 54Section 548Section 54B

…from Tehsil HQ Garmukteswar. Page 37 reveals that the assessee also obtained no objection certificate form Nagar Palika. 7. Now I turn to consider the proposition rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Hindustan Industrial Resources Vs. Asst. ACIT 335 ITR 77 (Delhi), as vehemently relied by the ld counsel of the assessee wherein at page 2 their lordship held that where the assessee has throughout maintained that the land in question was land falling within the definition of ‘agricultural land’ given in section 2(4)(iii) of the Act. The fact that the appellant/ assessee intended to use the land for ind…

NOSHIR DARABSHAW TALATI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR 7(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1516/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250Section 45

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.1516/Mum./2021 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Noshir Darabshaw Talati Level–6, Ceejay House ……………. Applicant Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Road Worli, Mumbai 400 018 PAN – AAAPT6890R v/s Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–7(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Sr. A.R. Date of Hearing – 08.07.2022 Date of Order – 03.10.2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appe…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5460/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…iness income 10. Marigold Merchandise (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIt [2015] 55 taxmann.com 358 (Delhi – Trib.) 11. Goutham Constructions Co. Vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Hyderabad [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad – Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2011] 335 ITR 77 (Delhi) 13. Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Rajkot-1 Vs. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta [2018] 409 ITR 196 (Gujarat) IV. Gain from sale of land could not be taxed as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade, merely because of short period of holding 14. Tulla Veerender Vs. ACIT, Range-6 [2013] 144 ITD 440 (Hyderabad – Trib.) V. Exemption u…

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5348/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…iness income 10. Marigold Merchandise (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIt [2015] 55 taxmann.com 358 (Delhi – Trib.) 11. Goutham Constructions Co. Vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Hyderabad [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad – Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2011] 335 ITR 77 (Delhi) 13. Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Rajkot-1 Vs. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta [2018] 409 ITR 196 (Gujarat) IV. Gain from sale of land could not be taxed as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade, merely because of short period of holding 14. Tulla Veerender Vs. ACIT, Range-6 [2013] 144 ITD 440 (Hyderabad – Trib.) V. Exemption u…

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4136/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…iness income 10. Marigold Merchandise (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIt [2015] 55 taxmann.com 358 (Delhi – Trib.) 11. Goutham Constructions Co. Vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Hyderabad [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad – Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2011] 335 ITR 77 (Delhi) 13. Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Rajkot-1 Vs. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta [2018] 409 ITR 196 (Gujarat) IV. Gain from sale of land could not be taxed as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade, merely because of short period of holding 14. Tulla Veerender Vs. ACIT, Range-6 [2013] 144 ITD 440 (Hyderabad – Trib.) V. Exemption u…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2802/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…iness income 10. Marigold Merchandise (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIt [2015] 55 taxmann.com 358 (Delhi – Trib.) 11. Goutham Constructions Co. Vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Hyderabad [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad – Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2011] 335 ITR 77 (Delhi) 13. Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Rajkot-1 Vs. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta [2018] 409 ITR 196 (Gujarat) IV. Gain from sale of land could not be taxed as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade, merely because of short period of holding 14. Tulla Veerender Vs. ACIT, Range-6 [2013] 144 ITD 440 (Hyderabad – Trib.) V. Exemption u…

CREDENTIAL REALTORES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1672/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary

For Appellant: Sh. K.C. Singhal, Adv. and Sh. H.K. Batra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 2Section 2(1)

…poses of capital gains does not include agricultural land, would be available to the assessee.” 16. Also we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Hindustan Industrial Resources vs. ACIT in IT Appeal no. 1130 of 2006 reported in 335 ITR 77 where it has been held that and the relevant part are reproduced herein below:- “The fact that the assessee intended to use the land for industrial purposes did not alter the nature and character of the land in any way. The further fact that the assessee did not carry out any agricultural operations also did not result in conversion of the agricu…

ACIT 21(1), MUMBAI vs. HARESH CHUNILAL RAJANI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 911/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.B.R. Baskaran & Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.911/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2011-12 Acit-21(1) Shri Haresh Chunilal Rajani Room No.116, 1St Floor, Piramal Prop. M/S. Kem Cards, Chambers, Parel Vs 701, Ashirwang, Mumbai-400 012. 72, Pochkhanwala Rd. Worli, Mumbai-400 025. Pan: Aacpr 3308 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri-Ar राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2016 O R D E R लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य बी लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य बी बी.आर बी आर आर. . . . बा"करन आर बा"करन बा"करन के अनुसार बा"करन के अनुसार के अनुसार/ Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: के अनुसार The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2014 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-33, Mumbai For Assessment Year 2011-12. Though The Revenue Has Raised Many Grounds, All Of Them Are Directed Against A Single Issue, Viz., Whether The Ld Cit(A) Was Justified In Accepting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Land Sold By Him Was A Agricultural Land.

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri-ARFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-DR
Section 2(14)

…rly mentioned in the purchase and sale deeds in respect of this land, which are placed on record and entered in the revenue records as agricultural land. 35.1 In the case of HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, :(2011) 335 ITR 77, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "In view of the findings of the Tribunal that the land in question was agricultural land at the time of purchase by assesseees also at the time of acquisition, the land was clearly agricultural land irrespective of the fact that the assessee intended to use the land for industrial purposes and d…

ITO 3(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. CYRUS ENGINEERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4552/MUM/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4552/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98)

For Appellant: Shri Bihanlal
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…d not declared any wrong figures in its accounts which could have meant that the appellant had declared inaccurate particulars of its income. 12. In this regard, the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High in the case of Hindustan Resources Ltd. 335 ITR 77 (Delhi) where the Hon'ble court held that the intention to use a particular piece of land for non agricultural purpose cannot by itself alter the character of land. This decision is not at all relevant to the facts of the case of the appellant, as in that case, the character of the land on the date, the same was purchased by the assessee was agric…

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

…ed before the authority below:- Quoted portion can be seen from Page No-13 of CIT(A) order. 5. It is submitted that both the authorities has overlooked the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hindustan Industrial Resources Vs ACIT reported in 335 ITR 77 (Del) wherein it has been held that the fact that the assessee has not cultivated the land since long does not change the character of the land. Relevant observations of their lordship are reproduced hereunder:- “The fact that the assessee intended to use the land for industrial purposes did not in any way alter the nature and character of the lan…