Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 69 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Manilal Somnath on 25 March, 1976

Chhotalal Prabhudas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-V on 10 October, 1978

21. We may also point out that in CIT v. Manilal Somnath, it was held that the fact that the land was within municipal limits or the fact that it was included within the draft town planning scheme would not by themselves dislodge the presumption flowing from the actual user of the land. In the instant case the point to be emphasised is that after the reconversion back to agricultural use in 1952, nothing had happened till the date of sale to show that the character of the lands had ceased to be that of agricultural lands. What we have to consider is not what the purchaser did with the lands or what the purchaser was supposed to do with the land, but what was the character of the lands at the time when the sale took place.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Shri Nikul Jagdishchandra Patel,, ... vs The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad on 25 January, 2023

1. The Ld. CIT(A) on facts and under law after considering the settled legal position of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT, Rajkot -1 vs. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta (2018) 96 taxmann.com 164 (Guj.), decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manilal Somnath (1977) 106 ITR 917 (Guj.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Enbee Resourts Ltd, vs Department Of Income Tax

A) Following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manilal Somnath [106 ITR 917], after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that by a reasonable estimate, at the time of taking possession of the land by the 14 assessee company and during the year under consideration, 30% of the total land was either demarcated as padat or was unused or was not being used for agricultural operations. Therefore, out of the total lease rent of Rs.32,88,492/-, a sum of Rs.9,86,548/- being 30% of the total lease rent for the first year is hereby estimated as lease rent pertaining to that portion of land which was not being used for agricultural operations during F.Y. 96- 97 as per the land records and which cannot be treated as covered u/s 2(1A)(a) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the same is hereby treated as income from other sources. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Enbee Industries Ltd, vs Assessee on 24 March, 2003

A) Following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manilal Somnath [106 ITR 917], after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it 19 can be said that by a reasonable estimate, at the time of taking possession of the land by the assessee company and during the year under consideration, 30% of the total land was either demarcated as padat or was unused or was not being used for agricultural operations. Therefore, out of the total lease rent of Rs.32,88,492/-, a sum of Rs.9,86,548/- being 30% of the total lease rent for the first year is hereby estimated as lease rent pertaining to that portion of land which was not being used for agricultural operations during F.Y. 96-97 as per the land records and which cannot be treated as covered u/s 2(1A)(a) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the same is hereby treated as income from other sources.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maganalal Morarbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 31 January, 1979

11. In view of the legal position which we have set out hereinabove, it must be pointed out that, prima facie, the presumption from the actual user of the land, namely, agricultural user, would arise in the instant case. A further presumption would arise from the entries in the revenue records and neither of these presumptions is rebutted by the presence of any other factor in this case. No factor has been pointed out in this case which would go to show that either of these two presumptions is rebutted in the instant case. The Pani Patraks which were produced before the ITO and which were mentioned by the Tribunal in its order go to show that continuously, right down till the date of the sale, so far as the land sold to the co-operative society is concerned and the balance so far as the balance of the land is concerned even after the date of sale, it was being used continuously for agricultural purposes. Morarbhai, the original purchaser's father of the assessee, purchased the land as far back as 1921. Till his death, he used the land for agricultural purposes band till the date of the sale, the land was being used for agricultural purposes by Maganbhai, the assessee. Under these circumstances, in the absence of any other material on record, it cannot be said that the land had lost its agricultural character. As pointed out by this court in Manilal Somnath's case [1977] 106 ITR 917 (Guj), the land had undoubtedly potential non-agricultural value and for the potential non-agricultural value the purchaser was prepared to pay a high price, but such potential non-agricultural value does not detract from the character of the land as agricultural land at the date of the sale. It is true that agricultural land would not be sold by yardage at the rate of Rs. 6.95 per square yard, but this high price reflects potential non-agricultural value. It does not mean that the land had ceased to be agricultural land because of this price or because of the permission to sell the land to a non-agriculturist.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Shamji Manekji Shah, Mumbai vs Dcit Circle-3, Thane on 16 November, 2018

The assessee relied upon judgment of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Manilal Somnath (1977) 106 ITR 917(Guj.). The AO observed that the onus is on the assessee to prove veracity and allowability of the claim . It was observed by the AO that onus is on the assessee to prove that the said land was actually used for the agricultural purposes. The AO observed that the assessee has not produced any documents to prove that the land in question was used for agricultural purposes. The AO also observed that the assessee has before the sale of the land in question to Shri Swapnil Shende and Shri 6 I.T.A. No.2451/Mum/2018 Sachin Lodha , initiated the procedure required to obtain the documents required for acquiring permission for conversion of the said land to Non-agricultural purposes . The AO observed that the assessee has obtained following documents before the date of sale of land on 31.10.2013 , as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 46 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Chandravati Atmaram Patel vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 15 September, 1977

In the circumstances, we think it appropriate to decline to answer the question on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to consider and decide the question whether the land was agricultural land from the correct angle, that is, has not considered the question whether the land under consideration was agricultural land or not from the proper perspective and the proper angle has not applied the correct law to this point and its whole approach was erroneous in the lights of the law as explained by this court in Manilal Somnath's case [1917] (Guj) and by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Officer-in- Charge (Court of Wards) [1976] 105 ITR 133, and the Tribunal had not considered all appropriate provisions of law applicable to this question.
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next