Which cases are most cited on Section 63?

Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT (204 ITR 631) — 197 citing judgments; Ex Japan) Analyst Fund (2014) 61 SOT 277 and Capital International Emerging Markets Funs v. DIT (145 ITD 491) — 11 citing judgments; Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka v. CIT (16 ITR 301) — 8 citing judgments; Ltd. vs. ADIT (2009) (132 TTJ 218); Fidelity Investment Trust Fidelity Overseas Fund v. ADIT (36 SOT 22) — 4 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 63?

BharatTax indexes 92 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 63 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 63 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 63 of the Income Tax Act?

Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT (204 ITR 631) is the decision most relied on for Section 63, cited in 197 judgments. 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.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.98

Section 63 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 98 (“Transfer” and “revocable transfer” defined) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 98 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 63 is Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT (204 ITR 631), cited in 197 of the 92 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 63

Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT

204 ITR 631 · 1993 · Supreme Court

197

citing judgments

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.

Ex Japan) Analyst Fund (2014) 61 SOT 277 and Capital International Emerging Markets Funs v. DIT

145 ITD 491 · 2013 · ITAT

citing judgments

The decision in ADIT vs Legg Mason Sia (Ex Japan) Analyst Fund and Capital International Emerging Markets Funs vs DIT supports the assessee where non-STT paid funds are concerned.

Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka v. CIT

16 ITR 301 · 1948 · High Court

citing judgments

Ltd. vs. ADIT (2009) (132 TTJ 218); Fidelity Investment Trust Fidelity Overseas Fund v. ADIT

36 SOT 22 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 63

M/S. Bishnupur Rowtara Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Nadia vs. I.T.O., Ward-41(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 579/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

Section 143(1)Section 28Section 56Section 57Section 64Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Avenue Venture Estate Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO-23(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1021/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 10Section 161Section 166

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Rvcf Trust-II, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 198/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 166Section 199Section 2(15)

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Ahmedabad vs. Smt. Kavita V. Adani, Ahmedabad

Appeal are allowed

ITA 18/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53ASection 63

Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-20, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 700/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2015-16 ) Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aactp-3767-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -20, Room No.418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ronak Doshi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri R.K.Sahu & Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -20 (In Short ‘The Pcit’) Dated 12/03/2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘ The Act’ )

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: S/Shri R.K.Sahu and Milind Chavan

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 61

ITO 22(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Arcil Asset Reconstruction Fund II Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 889/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us :-

Section 143(3)Section 61Section 63

ITO 22 (1)(6), Mumbai vs. Arcil Aarf I 1 Trust, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 7353/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 7353/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito – 22(1)(6) Arcil Aarf-I-1 Trust R. No. 104, 1St Floor 10Th Floor, The Ruby 29 बिाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Sepapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Vs. Mumbai-400 012 (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacta-0755-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain – Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 15/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 17/09/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) On 19/02/2016. The Ground Read As Under: - 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Changing The Status Of Assessee As "Trust" & Not Aop & Allowing Expenses Of Rs.6,18,21,763 Which Was Made By The Assessee For Protection Preservation & Insurance Expenses & Management Fees From Such Investment Activity Upon Redemption Of The Principal Amount Of Security Receipts(Sr)."

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 61

Smt. Manish Jaitha, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 26 (1), Mumbai

ITA 384/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.342 To 345/Mum/2020 Ita Nos.384 To 388/Mum/2020 (Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2013-14) Smt. Manisha Jaitha Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 2B, Brighton No. 2, 68-D Circle 26(1), 1St Floor , Room No. 107, Rungta Lane, Vs. Nepean Sea Road Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai – 400 006 Mumbai – 400 012

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)

Smt.Manisha Jaitha, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 26 (1), Mumbai

ITA 342/MUM/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)

ITO 23 (3)93), Mumbai vs. Sme Retail Pool IV Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7966/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 161

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed and

ITA 3433/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. MadhusudanFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sharma (DR)

Section 20Section 25Section 3(2)Section 32(7)Section 39

Arcil Cps 002 XII Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 434/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty (DR)

Section 234Section 234BSection 40Section 61

DCIT(E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals are dismissed

ITA 2326/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2007-08

Section 20Section 25Section 3(2)Section 32(7)Section 39

Mr. Melvin Isaac vs. Mr. Michael Isaac Patrick

WP/7026/2020HC Karnataka10 Jun 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No.7026 Of 2020 (Gm-Cpc)

Section 151

Income Tax Officer-23(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Corporate Loan Securities Trust 2008 Series 14, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

ITA 4789/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 161Section 161(1)Section 61

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S True North Fund Iiia, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 486/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 2Section 47

ITO 23(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Il & Fs Orix Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4792/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Il & Orix Trust Room No.18, Matru Mandir The Il & Fs Financial Grant Road Centre Mumbai – 400007 Plot No.C-22, G-Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East Mumbai - 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16277K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 161Section 61

ITO 23(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Il & Fs Investment Trust-V, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes for all the three years

ITA 320/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & & Ito- 23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Il & Fs Investment Room No.108, Trust-V Matru Mandir The Il & Fs Financial Tardeo Road Centre Grant Road, Mumbai-400007 Plot C-22, G-Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaati5996B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.82/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.320/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2009-10) Co No.04/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3740/Mum/2014) (Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Co No.83/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.322/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year : 2011-12)

Section 143(3)Section 161

Bhavik Bharatbhai Padia vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1)

SCA/17021/2018HC Gujarat19 Aug 2019

Section 147

M/S New Diamond Era vs. Deputy State Tax Commissioner

SCA/5231/2018HC Gujarat26 Jun 2019

Section 2Section 2(42)Section 3Section 4Section 63