Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.49 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Dumraon Cold Storage Refrigeration ... on 11 January, 1983 cites

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Tarachand Jain on 18 October, 1979

8. If on the materials it is established that the land which is the subject-matter of controversy has actually been used for agricultural purposes then merely because such land is near a railway station or within a municipality is not of much consequence. Similarly, what is the purpose for which the lands have been sold also is not of much consequence because the stage to consider for the purpose of capital gain is the day the land is sold; what was the nature of the land on that day and not what it would be in future. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Tarachand Jain [1980] 123 ITR 567 (Pat), this court considered a similar question. In that case the ITO had found that, (a) for the last 2 to 3 years no agricultural operation had been carried out on the land, (b) although the land was agricultural land in the past, owing to the development of the town it acquired the character of urban property, and (c) it had been sold for the purpose of construction of a building. This court pointed out that merely because a land has been sold for the purpose of construction of a building or it has been sold at a high price, it cannot be held that the land in question was not an agricultural land, if on materials it is otherwise established that it was an agricultural land on the date it was sold. It was also observed that there may be cases in which for one reason or the other, actual agricultural operations might not have been carried on and yet the owner had always intended to use it for agricultural purposes.
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 18 - N P Singh - Full Document

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

9. On behalf of the Department reliance was placed on the cases of Syed Rafiqur Rahman v. CWT [1970] 75 ITR 318 (Pat)and CIT v. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim [1982] 136 ITR 621 (Guj). In the former case, [1970] 75 ITR 318, in connection with the W.T. Act, it was held, on the facts of that case, that the land in question was not agricultural land. From a bare reference to the judgment it will appear that the plot in question was situated in the residential area and no evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the assessee to show that the land was actually being cultivated after 1933. In my opinion, that judgment is of no help to the Department because the facts were different. In the latter case, [1982] 136 ITR 621 (Guj), a question had arisen about a land which had been entered in the Land Revenue Code as agricultural land. On the materials produced, it was held that later it ceased to be an agricultural land. For arriving at that conclusion several circumstances have been mentioned from the records of the case, including that the land was situated in an urban area within municipal limits. It was also taken note of that it had been sold on sq. yard basis for non-agricultural purposes to a building society. It need not be pointed out that any finding on the question whether on a particular date the land is an agricultural land or not will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A land which might have been recorded as agricultural land on material on record, can be held to be non-agricultural one because of the use it had been put for the last several years before the sale. Similarly, a land which originally might be non-agricultural can later become an agricultural land and on the materials on record can be held as such for the purpose of determining the liability for the capital gain.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1