Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (4.74 seconds)
Documents citing Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujrat on 3 October, 1980

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), ... on 21 June, 2022

In the decision of Gujarat High Court relied upon by the DR, in the case of Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1981) 127 ITR 664, the Hon'ble High Court held that the potential non-agricultural use does not alter the character of the land. This was a case wherein the land was purchased in 1954 and subsequently sold in 1969. The entries in the revenue records showed that the land was agricultural continued to be so. The land revenue paid was for agricultural use, but permission for non-agricultural use was obtained but not before the date of the sale. In these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the presumption that the land is agricultural. The Hon'ble High Court came to the above conclusion inspite of the fact that this land was situated in Page 62 of 66 ITA No. 1396/Bang/2019 an industrially developed area where the potential use of the land as non-agricultural land was very high but the Hon'ble High Court held that the use of the land as non- agricultural is totally immaterial. Entries in the record of rights are good prima facie evidence regarding land being agricultural and if the presumption raised either from actual user of the land or from entries in revenue records is to be rebutted, there must be material on the record to rebut the presumption. The approach of the fact-finding authorities, namely, the income-tax authorities and the Tribunal, should be to consider the question from the point of view of presumption arising from entries in the record of rights or actual user of the land and then consider whether that presumption is dislodged by other factors in the case. While coming to the above conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court considered the following facts. The presumption for non-agricultural use was obtained by the assessee before the sale of the land. Coming to the facts in the instant case, the previous owner made an application for conversion, obtained the permission, but with the condition that the land should be used for the intended purpose within two years, otherwise the original character of the land, i.e., agricultural nature, would be restored. Then the assessee or the subsequent purchased has to pay penalty and make a further application to obtain permission to revive the land for intended purpose. The assessee has not done this even according to the revenue. This was done by the subsequent purchaser i.e., Tibetan Childrens' Village, which compels to conclude that what the assessee held at the time of sale was agricultural land. It is true the facts is on border line, but the evidence produced before us in the form of RTC showing agricultural income etc., is in assessee's favour.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit Corporate Circle 4(1) , Chennai vs Arjun Parthasarathy, Chennai on 26 April, 2019

Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gordhambhai Kahandas Dalwadi v. CIT 127 ITR 664. In reply to point No. 5, the ld. DR has stated that permission for the construction of 20 truck terminals cum cargo handling yard was given by the Deputy Director, Town Planning vide his letter dated 23.09.2008 (wrongly mentioned as 23.08.2008). It is a preliminary approval accorded to the assessee with eight conditions and condition No. 7 is that "This concern should be accorded final sanction only after obtaining necessary approvals from the other Central and State Government departments under the applicable laws and regulations", which means, the approval accorded vide letter dated 23.09.2008 is only a 41 I.T.A. Nos. 1587/Chny/17, 2358, 2359 & 2934/Chny/16 preliminary approval and moreover, the assessee has not obtained any other approval from the Central and State Government Departments, which is a mandatory requirement, as has been confirmed by the Dy. Block Development Officer, Sholavaram Panchayat Union vide his letter dated 27.07.2015. Reply to point 6, the ld. DR stated that it was not used for agricultural purposes nor there was also no alternate use made of the said land. As on the date of photos taken on 30.12.2013 and filed in the form of paper book, we could see that there are huge coconut trees on the land and thus, the reply is not correct. In reply to point 7, the ld. DR went in wrong to state that only because banana trees and coconut trees lying in the land does not mean that agricultural activities were being done on the said lands, because, admittedly, both the crops are plantation crops, which need proper care otherwise, crop will die.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr K. P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), ... on 25 March, 2022

In the decision of Gujarat High Court relied upon by the DR, in the case of Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1981) 127 ITR 664, the Hon'ble High Court held that the potential non-agricultural use does not alter the character of the land. This was a case wherein the land was purchased in 1954 and subsequently sold in 1969. The entries in the revenue records showed that the land was agricultural continued to be so. The land revenue paid was for agricultural use, but permission for non-agricultural use was obtained but not before the date of the sale. In these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the presumption that the land is agricultural. The Hon'ble High Court came to the above conclusion inspite of the fact that this land was situated in an industrially developed area where the potential use of the land as non-agricultural land was very high but the Hon'ble High Court held that the use of the land as non-agricultural is totally immaterial. Entries in the record of rights are good prima facie evidence regarding land being agricultural and if the presumption raised either from actual user of the land or from entries in revenue records is to be rebutted, there must be material on the record to rebut the presumption. The approach of the fact-finding authorities, namely, the income-tax ITA No.977/Bang/2019 Mr. K.P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore Page 62 of 66 authorities and the Tribunal, should be to consider the question from the point of view of presumption arising from entries in the record of rights or actual user of the land and then consider whether that presumption is dislodged by other factors in the case. While coming to the above conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court considered the following facts. The presumption for non- agricultural use was obtained by the assessee before the sale of the land. Coming to the facts in the instant case, the previous owner made an application for conversion, obtained the permission, but with the condition that the land should be used for the intended purpose within two years, otherwise the original character of the land, i.e., agricultural nature, would be restored. Then the assessee or the subsequent purchased has to pay penalty and make a further application to obtain permission to revive the land for intended purpose. The assessee has not done this even according to the revenue. This was done by the subsequent purchaser i.e., Tibetan Childrens' Village, which compels to conclude that what the assessee held at the time of sale was agricultural land. It is true the facts is on border line, but the evidence produced before us in the form of RTC showing agricultural income etc., is in assessee's favour.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 47 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs H. A. Sodhan (Greater-Huf). on 7 August, 1985

The appellant-HUF owned a plot of land which it though was agricultural land. The said plot was situated on Ashram Road and was sold to the Educational Society of Ahmedabad. According to the revenue records the land in question was being shown as agricultural land. The appellant was, therefore, under a bona fide belief that even if no agricultural operations were being performed the land in question was agricultural land because it was not put to any other use either. The ITO was of the view, that because agricultural operation had not been performed and the land in question was lying fallow, the nature and character of the land was non-agricultural. He, accordingly, assessed the land as non-agricultural and included capital gains arising as a result of transfer of that land. When the matter went to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) he came to the conclusion that the facts of the the conclusion that the facts of the instant case were on all fours with those of the case decided by the Gujarat High Court and reported in Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 664. This is what the learned Commissioner (Appeals) wrote in his appellate order :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim on 17 April, 1981

14. In the light of the foregoing discussion the conclusion is inevitable that the land in question is not agricultural land. We may mention that counsel for the assessee has sought support from Chhotalal Prabhudas v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 631 (Guj), Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 664 (Guj) and Rampmsad v. CIT (I.T. Ref. No. 90 of 1976 decided on 3-10-80 (see p. 633 infra) in which land was held to be agricultural land. In our opinion, these cases, decided on their individual facts, cannot make us disregard the overpowering reasons articulated hereinbefore for reaching a contrary conclusion on the basis of the principles which cannot be doubted or disputed. We cannot, therefore, accede to the submission urged by counsel for the assessee.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

M.N. Manjunath, Ramanagar vs Assessee

In the decision of Gujarat High Court relied upon by the DR, in the case of Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1981) 127 ITR 664, the Hon'ble High Court held that the potential non-agricultural use does not alter the character of the land. This was a case wherein the land was purchased in 1954 and subsequently sold in 1969. The entries in the revenue records showed that the land was agricultural continued to be so. The land revenue paid was for agricultural use, but permission for non-agricultural use was obtained but not before the date of the sale. In these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the presumption that ITA.1464, 1465/B/08; 177, 178, 262 & 305/B/09 Page - 48 the land is agricultural. The Hon'ble High Court came to the above conclusion inspite of the fact that this land was situated in an industrially developed area where the potential use of the land as non- agricultural land was very high but the Hon'ble High Court held that the use of the land as non-agricultural is totally immaterial. Entries in the record of rights are good prima facie evidence regarding land being agricultural and if the presumption raised either from actual user of the land or from entries in revenue records is to be rebutted, there must be material on the record to rebut the presumption. The approach of the fact-finding authorities, namely, the income-tax authorities and the Tribunal, should be to consider the question from the point of view of presumption arising from entries in the record of rights or actual user of the land and then consider whether that presumption is dislodged by other factors in the case. While coming to the above conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court considered the following facts. The presumption for non-agricultural use was obtained by the assessee before the sale of the land. Coming to the facts in the instant case, the previous owner made an application for conversion, obtained the permission, but with the condition that the land should be used for the intended purpose within two years, otherwise the original character of the land, i.e., agricultural nature, would be restored. Then the assessee or the subsequent purchased has ITA.1464, 1465/B/08; 177, 178, 262 & 305/B/09 Page - 49 to pay penalty and make a further application to obtain permission to revive the land for intended purpose. The assessee has not done this even according to the revenue. This was done by the subsequent purchaser i.e., Tibetan Childrens' Village, which compels to conclude that what the assessee held at the time of sale was agricultural land. It is true the facts is on border line, but the evidence produced before us in the form of RTC showing agricultural income etc., is in assessee's favour.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagdishbhai Gadhiya, Surat vs Assessee on 13 February, 2015

4.4. We find that both the authorities below have failed to take note of these factors and have decided this issue mechanically, therefore the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of AO for de novo assessment. The AO is hereby directed to verify the documents as furnished by the assessee in support of its claim that the land was agricultural before acquisition and decide this issue in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Siddharth J.Desai(supra) and Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi vs. CIT(supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Wealth Tax Officer vs Satyanarain Saraf And Ors. on 29 September, 2000

In the case of Gordhan Bhai Kahandas Dalwadi v. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 664 (Guj), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that the crucial test for determining the nature of a particular land is the actual use of the said land on the relevant date and not the potential non-agricultural use which does not alter the character of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahesh Chand vs Brijesh Kumar And Ors. on 15 February, 2024

Strong reliance was placed by Shri Aruneshwar Gupta upon two decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi v. CIT [(1981) 127 ITR 664 (Guj)] and Motibhai D. Patel (Dr) v. CIT [(1981) 127 ITR 671 (Guj)] . In the first case, the land was registered as agricultural land in the revenue records and land revenue was being paid thereon. No permission was taken for converting it to non-agricultural use before the date of sale. Potential non-agricultural use or the fact that development had taken place in the vicinity of the land, it was held, do not militate against the fact that it was an agricultural land. In the next case too the land was registered as an agricultural land and permission to convert it into non-agricultural land was not obtained before the date of sale. In the circumstances, it was held that mere fact that it was sold at a high price only indicates its potentiality for non-agricultural use. On a consideration of entirety of the circumstances, it was held that it was an agricultural land.
Allahabad High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next