Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.77 seconds)
Enbee Resourts Ltd, vs Department Of Income Tax cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Manilal Somnath on 25 March, 1976

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."
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 66 - Full Document

M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd vs C.I.T., Delhi-V on 28 March, 2017

8. In the light of the above, it can be said that the assessee is having a strong case in its favour especially when no contrary decision was brought to our notice by either side. It can be said that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal had attained finality as the revenue has not brought to our notice any order from the Hon'ble Higher Forum that aforesaid order either reversed or stayed. Even if this issue is analysed with the angle of consistency, the department is not permitted to take a contrary stand. Our view finds support from the decisions in CWT vs. Allied Finance P. Ltd. (2007) (289 ITR 318) (Del), Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (266 ITR 99), Union of India vs. Satish Pannalal Shah (249 ITR 221) (SC), and Union of India & others vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Others (249 ITR 219) (SC). In view of this fact and judicial pronouncements, we have found that no evidence has been brought on record to prove that agricultural land was used other than agricultural activity. As per sub-clause (a) to sec. 2(1A) of the Act, it says any rental revenue derived from land which is situated in India and is used for agricultural purposes. In the present appeals, admittedly, the impugned land is agricultural land only, therefore, in our humble opinion, the intention of the legislature is that firstly, 16 the land should be agricultural land and the rent should be received/derived from such land. The process of cultivation and the income derived therefrom has been elaborated in sub- clause (b)(i), (ii) & (iii) to sec. 2(1A), otherwise, there was no need to mention sub-clause (b) separately, therefore, considering sec. 2(1A)(a) and decisions cited/considered, it is held that the entire land was used for agricultural purposes. Even otherwise, the word "rent" means payment of money in cash or in kind to any person to the owner in respect of grant of right to use land. The expression "revenue" is however, used in the broad sense of return, yield or income and not in the sense of land revenue only.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 97 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Union Of India vs Satish Panalal Shah on 6 December, 2000

8. In the light of the above, it can be said that the assessee is having a strong case in its favour especially when no contrary decision was brought to our notice by either side. It can be said that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal had attained finality as the revenue has not brought to our notice any order from the Hon'ble Higher Forum that aforesaid order either reversed or stayed. Even if this issue is analysed with the angle of consistency, the department is not permitted to take a contrary stand. Our view finds support from the decisions in CWT vs. Allied Finance P. Ltd. (2007) (289 ITR 318) (Del), Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (266 ITR 99), Union of India vs. Satish Pannalal Shah (249 ITR 221) (SC), and Union of India & others vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Others (249 ITR 219) (SC). In view of this fact and judicial pronouncements, we have found that no evidence has been brought on record to prove that agricultural land was used other than agricultural activity. As per sub-clause (a) to sec. 2(1A) of the Act, it says any rental revenue derived from land which is situated in India and is used for agricultural purposes. In the present appeals, admittedly, the impugned land is agricultural land only, therefore, in our humble opinion, the intention of the legislature is that firstly, 16 the land should be agricultural land and the rent should be received/derived from such land. The process of cultivation and the income derived therefrom has been elaborated in sub- clause (b)(i), (ii) & (iii) to sec. 2(1A), otherwise, there was no need to mention sub-clause (b) separately, therefore, considering sec. 2(1A)(a) and decisions cited/considered, it is held that the entire land was used for agricultural purposes. Even otherwise, the word "rent" means payment of money in cash or in kind to any person to the owner in respect of grant of right to use land. The expression "revenue" is however, used in the broad sense of return, yield or income and not in the sense of land revenue only.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors. vs Kaumudini Narayan Dalal And Anr. on 6 December, 2000

8. In the light of the above, it can be said that the assessee is having a strong case in its favour especially when no contrary decision was brought to our notice by either side. It can be said that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal had attained finality as the revenue has not brought to our notice any order from the Hon'ble Higher Forum that aforesaid order either reversed or stayed. Even if this issue is analysed with the angle of consistency, the department is not permitted to take a contrary stand. Our view finds support from the decisions in CWT vs. Allied Finance P. Ltd. (2007) (289 ITR 318) (Del), Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (266 ITR 99), Union of India vs. Satish Pannalal Shah (249 ITR 221) (SC), and Union of India & others vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Others (249 ITR 219) (SC). In view of this fact and judicial pronouncements, we have found that no evidence has been brought on record to prove that agricultural land was used other than agricultural activity. As per sub-clause (a) to sec. 2(1A) of the Act, it says any rental revenue derived from land which is situated in India and is used for agricultural purposes. In the present appeals, admittedly, the impugned land is agricultural land only, therefore, in our humble opinion, the intention of the legislature is that firstly, 16 the land should be agricultural land and the rent should be received/derived from such land. The process of cultivation and the income derived therefrom has been elaborated in sub- clause (b)(i), (ii) & (iii) to sec. 2(1A), otherwise, there was no need to mention sub-clause (b) separately, therefore, considering sec. 2(1A)(a) and decisions cited/considered, it is held that the entire land was used for agricultural purposes. Even otherwise, the word "rent" means payment of money in cash or in kind to any person to the owner in respect of grant of right to use land. The expression "revenue" is however, used in the broad sense of return, yield or income and not in the sense of land revenue only.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 171 - Full Document

Commssioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal vs Kamal Behari Lal Singha Etc on 16 August, 1971

Plea was also raised that the amounts were diverted in undue haste. The activities were argued to be seen as a whole, therefore, one assessment cannot be picked up for entire group. The crux of the argument is that the intention of the assessee has to be seen before taking any decision as there is a diversion of large scale fund. Reliance was placed in CIT vs. Kamal Biharilal Singha (82 ITR 460) (SC) and CIT vs. Troilakya Chandra Bohra (261 ITR 299) (Gau). In response, the ld. Counsel for assessee contended that the cases relied upon by the revenue are not applicable to the present appeals, land was taken after due inspection which cannot be said against the public policy. It was strongly pleaded by the ld. Counsel for assessee that there is no diversion of funds for non-business purposes, therefore, there is no avoidance of tax because it was purely an lease agreement of agricultural land. It was also pointed out that ITA No.333/Ind/2007, the Tribunal deleted the similar addition. The ld. Counsel for assessee on the powers of the ld. CIT(A) did not press the grounds, however, he challenged the enhancement of income.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 43 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 3 Next