Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Himatlal Govindji vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat I on 4 March, 1972

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

In Himatlal Govindji's case [1977] 106 ITR 658 (Guj), though the land was being put to agricultural use, since it was found that it was only by way of a stop-gap arrangement till a purchaser of the plot which was already laid out came forward to purchase, it, it was held that the land was not agricultural land. In each case, therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the question will have to be asked, whether the presumption from the use of the land arises or not and, secondly whether such presumption flowing from the actual use of the land is dislodged by the presence of other factors in the case."
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Ali Akbaar Jafari,, Pune vs Department Of Income Tax on 26 February, 2013

15. It is apt to consider the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the department. Reliance was placed on Himatlal Govindji Vs. Commissioner of Wealth tax, (1977), 106 ITR 658, a case under the Wealth Tax Act decided by Gujarat High Court. Issue therein was whether the land in question was agricultural land within the meaning of section 2(e)(i) of Wealth Tax Act on the valuation date.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yaswanti R. Bhatt vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat on 7 April, 1977

6. Rasiklal Chimanlal Nagri's case [1965] 56ITR 608 (Guj) and Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Narandas Motilal [1971] 80 ITR 39 (Guj) were referred to and reviewed by P. D. Desai J., sitting with Bhagwati C.J., as he then was, in Himatlal Govindlal v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [1977] 106 ITR 658 (Guj). In that case, the learned judges found on the facts presented before them that the land there was put to agricultural use only by way of stop-gap arrangement till the assessee found ready and willing buyers for the plots and such user of land cannot furnish prima facie evidence about the nature and character of the land. In their view, the totality of circumstances should be taken into consideration. That was a case where after the assessee purchased the land, permission for non-agricultural use was obtained, land was plotted out, a large number of plots were sold for building purposes, there was considerable building activity in the area surrounding land and intention of the assessee to sell the land was also taken into account to hold that the land had ceased to be agricultural land at the relevant time.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - M P Thakkar - Full Document
1