Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.32 seconds)
Yaswanti R. Bhatt vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat on 7 April, 1977 cites

Rashiklal Chimanlal Nagri vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat on 10 November, 1964

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 10 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

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

10. We are, therefore, of the view that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal had correctly applied the tests laid down by this court and come to the conclusion that the land is not "agricultural land" so as to entitle the assessee to exemption by virtue of section 2(e)(i) of the Act. The reference is accordingly answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee, with costs.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 66 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat vs Narandas Motilal on 14 September, 1970

9. The learned counsel, Mr. Pate, sought to draw support from the view expressed in Narandas Motilal's case [1971] 80 ITR 39 (Guj) and Manilal Somnath's case [1977] 106 ITR 917 (Guj). It should be clearly understood that whether a particular land is an agricultural land or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The cumulative effect of the evidence placed on record should be the guiding factor in reaching the conclusion whether a particular land is agricultural land. It is true, as pointed out by Mr. Patel, that after the assessee purchased the land there were agricultural operations till 1960-61. The Tribunal has found that the area was well developed for housing purposes and co-operative housing colonel had come up before the period involved in these appeals. it would, therefore, appear from the facts of the case that on account of the development of the area all round the land, the assessee had stopped agricultural operations presumably with a view to find a good buyer who could develop it into a housing colony. It is not as if the assessee, for the reason that she could not get a tenant or she could not personally raise some vegetables or some crop on the land, stopped cultivating the land for the six assessment years. The fact that she resumed cultivation in the last two assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 and realised a meagre income of Rs. 83.25 and Rs. 301.35, respectively, from a very valuable land would clearly bring out her intention that she was not intending to use it as an agricultural land and that she was only waiting for a proper buyer who would buy for a good price. The Tribunal had before it the tests which this court had laid down and felt that the mere fact that it was put to agricultural use in the last two years will not by itself make the land, which was kept fallow or idle for a long period, "agricultural land". The agricultural character of the land had changed after the assessee stopped cultivating it from the assessment year 1960-61.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Himatlal Govindji vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat I on 4 March, 1972

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 4 - Full Document
1