Section 2(1A) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(1A) is CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (32 ITR 466), cited in 132 of the 117 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(1A)

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy
32 ITR 466 · 1957 · Supreme Court
132
citing judgments

Income is considered agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1), only if the land undergoes a measure of cultivation involving basic primary operations prior to germination and subsequent post-germination activities requiring human skill and labour.

H.A. Shah & Co. v. CIT
30 ITR 618 · 1956 · High Court
51
citing judgments

The principle of res judicata or estoppel does not strictly apply to Income Tax authorities, including the Tribunal. However, an earlier decision on the same question should not be reopened if it was arrived at after due inquiry, was not arbitrary or perverse, and no fresh facts are presented.

Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat
328 ITR 556 · 2010 · High Court
34
citing judgments

A transaction involving the purchase of land, especially if part of a series of similar transactions and likely to be acquired by the government, can be considered an adventure in the nature of trade, leading to the profit being assessed as business income.

CIT v. Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd.
341 ITR 342 · 2012 · High Court
33
citing judgments

Agricultural income exemption is denied when no lease of land is created, as leasing might be prohibited under relevant land reform acts.

CIT v. United Towers (P) Ltd.
296 ITR 106 · 2008 · High Court
11
citing judgments

The statutory mandate for an Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity to rebut evidence is not discretionary and is an indispensable requirement, embodying the principle of natural justice.

CIT, Trichur v. E.D. Benny
62 Taxmann.com 302 · 2015 · High Court
7
citing judgments
CIT Vs Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. 293 ITR 53 (Bomb.), CIT v. Parimal, Kandi Chanda
295 ITR 252 · 2007 · High Court
5
citing judgments
K.Lakshmansa & Co. v. CIT
128 ITR 283 · 1981 · High Court
4
citing judgments
CIT v. Kokine Dairy
6 ITR 502 · 1938 · Reported
4
citing judgments
Smt. Manyam Meenakshamma v. CWT
63 ITR 534 · 1967 · High Court
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 2(1A)

Shri Rakesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1879/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1879/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Rakesh Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata C/O V.N. Purohit & Co., Diamond Chambers, Unit-Iii, 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, Kolkata – 700 016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adlpa6462E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri V.N. Purohit & H.V. Bhartwaj, Fca Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 10, Kolkata Dated 14.06.2017 Passed In Case No.83/Cit(A)-10/Ward-36(1)/2016-17/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Two Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal. His Former Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Agricultural Income Claim Involving An Amount Of Rs.2,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer In His Assessment Order Dated 04.03.16 Observed That Although The Assessee Had Filed His Written Submissions Making Self-Declaration Of The Agricultural Land Deed Amount Received From Two Different Farmers, The Same Merely Amounted To A Self-Serving Document Without Any Supporting Evidence He Thus Disallowed The Assessee’S Claim.

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit & H.V. Bhartwaj, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 1ASection 2Section 2(14)