Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.31 seconds)
Acit, Jaipur vs Shri Sunil Bansal, Jaipur on 6 November, 2018 cites

Union Of India vs S.Muthyam Reddy on 1 October, 1999

Thus, the decisions were set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as it is held in para 3 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order (supra). Accordingly, the decisions relied upon by the ld AR would not help the case of the assessee. The ld AR has also relied upon the various decisions of this Tribunal on this point, however, all those decisions were on different set of facts and were passed without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S. Muthyam Reddy (supra). Accordingly, those decisions are no more a binding precedent. 7.3 It is pertinent to note that incentive of exempting the agricultural land from definition of capital asset and consequently from chargeability of income tax is to encourage the cultivation of land and preserve the character of agricultural land to be used for cultivation and agricultural operations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 16 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

J. Raghottama Reddy, S. Mutyam Reddy, ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 9 October, 1987

The ld AR of the assessee has given much emphasis on the explanation to Section 2(1A) of the Act and also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manubhai A. Seth Vs N.D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO as well as decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of J. Raghottama Reddy Vs ITO (supra). Since these decisions were based on the fact that the lands were undisputedly agricultural lands, therefore, once we hold that the land in questions cannot be regarded as agricultural land as the same loses its character of agricultural land the moment the assessee purchased the lands for the sole purpose of reselling to the companies in which the assessee is a Director and to be used for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, these decisions cannot be applied in this case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 22 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Manubhai A. Sheth And Others vs N.D. Nirgudkar, 2Nd Income-Tax ... on 18 June, 1980

The ld AR of the assessee has given much emphasis on the explanation to Section 2(1A) of the Act and also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manubhai A. Seth Vs N.D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO as well as decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of J. Raghottama Reddy Vs ITO (supra). Since these decisions were based on the fact that the lands were undisputedly agricultural lands, therefore, once we hold that the land in questions cannot be regarded as agricultural land as the same loses its character of agricultural land the moment the assessee purchased the lands for the sole purpose of reselling to the companies in which the assessee is a Director and to be used for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, these decisions cannot be applied in this case.
Bombay High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 94 - Full Document

Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim And ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 14 September, 1993

If the relevant tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Smt Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim's case (supra) and the test laid down by this Court in V.A. Trivedi's case (supra) are to be applied to this case as they ought to be, it would become obvious that the finding of fact arrived at by the ITO, the AAC and the Tribunal cannot be characterised as perverse or unsupported by evidence or erroneous in law. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee that the authorities below did not apply the correct test or misdirected themselves in law or that the finding of fact arrived by the Tribunal was not supported by evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 170 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next