Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 405 (0.14 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy on 23 May, 1957

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,Hyderabad vs Addl.Cit, Special Range-7, New Delhi on 6 August, 2025

12. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR supported the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted by him that the ld. AR could not bring any point or any submission which the Tribunal had not considered in the earlier years when deciding the matter against the assessee on this issue. It was submitted that the DIT(Inv.), Hyderabad, had conducted a survey, wherein the Investigation Wing concluded that the 'Leave and License Agreement' were make believe arrangements, which was supported by statement of farmers as recorded placed at page no.610 of the paper book. It was further submitted that the purchase of seeds was by the farmers and all other expenses and efforts are incurred by the assessee. It was submitted that 32 ITA Nos.1575, 7375/Del/2018 ITA No.9205/Del/2019 the agriculture activity considered as exempt as per the provisions of section 2(1A) of the Act is an activity which is considered below the land and after it comes out of land. It was further submitted that all the judgments relied upon by the ld. AR are prior to the matter heard and considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the earlier years as referred earlier in this order. As regards the order dated 18.07.2014 of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Namdhari Seeds and ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore in ITA No.346/2012 and Ors., it was submitted that the decision in the case of Namdhari Seeds in favour of the Revenue was delivered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court on 24.10.2011, whereas the subsequent decision in the case of Namdhari Seeds do not apply to the facts of the case of the assessee as the assessee has not carried out the basic agricultural activity as per the tests laid down in the case of CIT vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satya Prakash Gupta, Allahabad vs Acit, Allahabad on 15 March, 2023

I have gone through the facts and the written submissions filed along with the details filed enclose therein. The assessee deposited Rs. 37,43,000/- in cash on account of agricultural income in Standard Chartered Bank Account no. 62510015697. The appellant submitted only copy of lease of agricultural land as evidence in favour of doing agricultural activity. Appellant's only contention is that there is a lease agreement on a letter pad showing the land ownership but there is no other evidence showing any human intervention in the planting of these flowers, grass, vegetables and grains. There is no evidence in possession of appellant to prove that any procedures were adopted to produce and maintain these agricultural produces over a time from 1999 to the year in question. There is no evidence to prove that any basic and subsequent operations were duly performed resulting onto this agricultural income like expenditure on human labour, seeds, manure, pesticide, etc.. AO's contention is that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence whatsoever regarding expenses on plantations and there maintenance as stated above. No details of buyers or evidence of sale of these of flowers, grass, grains and vegetables were submitted before AO. The Supreme Court in CIT v Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC) has held that the land is said to be used for agricultural purposes where the following two types of operations are carried out on such land:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 75 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rajendra Kumar Agarwala, Jalpaiguri vs Assessee on 10 June, 2009

The Hon'ble High Court applying the ratio of decisions in the cases of Raja Mustafa Ali Khan vs. CIT [16 ITR 330 (PC)], CIT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [32 ITR 466 (SC)] and S.S.Raja Linga Raja vs. State of Madras [AIR 1767 SC 814] held that the sale proceeds of plants raised in nursery on land belonging to the assessee constitutes income from agriculture eligible for exemption u/s. 10(1) of the Act. The observation of Hon'ble High Court is as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Jayanti Botanical Gardens, ... vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(3), ... on 4 March, 2021

primary and secondary agricultural operations as enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (supra) was carried out in assessee's land, whereas, in the instant case, only growing of saplings and seedlings is undertaken in assessee's nursery and the other activities such as preparation of land, supply of soil, supply of fertilizer, engaging Horticulturists, insuring etc. even assuming it as secondary operation to the primary operation was never carried out in assessee's nursery but in client's site. For the aforesaid reasoning, I am of the view that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the assessment order is correct and in accordance with law and I uphold the same. It is ordered accordingly.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Havakkal Estate Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 September, 1976

5. As we pointed out already, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC). In our opinion, that decision has no bearing on the question to be considered in the present reference. That decision dealt with the meaning of the word "agriculture", in the context of and, in relation to, a forest of natural and spontaneous growth. While considering that question, the Supreme Court elaborately went into what would constitute agricultural operations and referred to the distinction between basic operations and subsequent operations. In that case, since the growth was natural and spontaneous, there were no basic operations carried out by the assessee at all and, only in that context, the Supreme Court expressed the view that the subsequent operations would not render the income derived from such forest as an agricultural income since the original growth was a spontaneous and natural one.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bihar ... vs Sri Ramakrishna Deo on 14 October, 1958

To appreciate the true import of these observations, we must have regard to the context in which they occur. The facts found in that case were that portions of the forest which was originally of spontaneous growth had gradually been denuded, that the propritor had planted trees in the areas so denuded, that this had gone on for a period of over 150 years, and that therefore " the whole of the income derived from (1) [1958] S.C.R. 101, 155, 158, 160.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

Gajanan Narayan Guinde,, Margao vs Department Of Income Tax on 7 May, 2014

Even there is no arrangement for watering the land. Whatever trees are there, they are old trees which have spontaneously grown. The land cannot be regarded to be an agricultural land. Attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy dt. 23.5.1957. In respect of the decision relied on by the Assessee, it was submitted that those decisions are not applicable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 57 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S Phi Seeds (P) Ltd, Hyderabad on 29 June, 2018

"18. We find from the arrangement between the farmer and the assessee that the assessee is not carrying any agricultural operations required in terms of tests laid in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (supra). The actual cultivation on the land is done by the farmer like tilling, sowing, etc. The mere supervision by the assessee without 17 ITA No.6622 & 6645/Del/2013 & 4366/Del/2015 carrying of the basic operations would leave no manner of doubt that no agricultural income arose in the hands of the assessee. The argument of the assessee that the company is an artificial person could not have conducted the agricultural operations by itself and, therefore, required such kind of an arrangement with the farmers for earning agricultural income does not have any merit. The farmers are not the employees of the assessee company. Had it been the case where the actual agricultural operations were carried out by the employees of the assessee company, it would have been a different case altogether.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next