2004 PLP 2166 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus M.L. MAHAJAN
| Citation | 2004 PLP 2166 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 255 I T R 272 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabharwal, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus M.L. MAHAJAN |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 2166 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 2166 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 255 I T R 272 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabharwal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 2166 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus M.L. MAHAJAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nada, Ajay Sharma, B.V.B. Balaram Das and P. Parameshwaran, Advocates, with him) for the Commissioner.
- Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for the Assessee.
Headnotes / Summary
(Cases arising out of I. T. R. Nos. 123 of 125 of 1986 and 30 to 32 of 1987 on the file of the Punjab and Haryana High Court withdrawn to the Supreme Court by order, dated September 8, 1989, under Article 139A(1) of the Constitution of India in Transfer Petitions (Civil) Nos.322 :o 327 of 1989). ‑‑‑‑Capital gains‑‑‑Agricultural land situate within municipal limits‑‑ Capital gains arising from sale‑‑‑Taxable‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.2(14)(iii)(a) &
45. Held, that capital gains arising from the sale of agricultural land situate in the municipal limits of Pathankot were taxable under the Income‑tax Act. Singhal Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 150 (SC) applied. T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nada, Ajay Sharma, B.V.B. Balaram Das and P. Parameshwaran, Advocates, with him) for the Commissioner. Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
Held, that capital gains arising from the sale of agricultural land situate in the municipal limits of Pathankot were taxable under the Income‑tax Act. Singhal Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 150 (SC) applied. T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nada, Ajay Sharma, B.V.B. Balaram Das and P. Parameshwaran, Advocates, with him) for the Commissioner. Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for the Assessee. The question that Arises in these transferred cases reads thus: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital gain arising on the sale of agricultural land situated in the municipal limits of Pathankot is not taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961? It is not in dispute that the question must now be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in the light of the judgment of this Court in Singhai Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 150 and (2001) 1 SCC
364. The references are allowed accordingly and the transferred cases disposed of. No order as to costs. M.B.A./1110/FC Order accordingly.