This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Land cannot be classified as non-agricultural for mere agricultural activity absence
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Smt. Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari Vs ITO, (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Visakhapatnam
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Whether an agricultural land held by assessee, which is suitable for agricultural operation, loses the characteristics of agricultural land merely because no agricultural operation was carried by assessee on such land?
A.O. computed capital gains on transfer of lands for the reason that the lands sold by the assessee are not agricultural lands and liable for capital gains. The A.O. further observed that the lands are situated within 8 kms. from the limits of GVMC and hence, previous limits of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation is irrelevant to determine the distance. Since, as on the date of...
where is my comment sir? you cannot delete without informing me sir? that is basic law of contract with you; you cannot be boss of my comment to be justified or not justified. if you do you fall under ‘arbitrary functioning’ in cyber space.
if you say that you don’t want to post, you need to tell the commentator, then the commentator may copy his comment and post elsewhere is it not, how can you intervene in the right of the commentator, please explain under constitution of India Articles, not quoting useless statutes of any government; after all ‘all statutes’; of any govt is questionable basically, if not there is no need of judiciary at all might mean governments fall outside the paradigm of the Constitution of india – as separation of powers is valid under the constitution of india, none can appropriate including the union government of india ; we have every right to question the union of india any time any where sir.
My view is, when a land cannot be ‘Agricultural land’ one needs to explain; just by the district collector a land is declared as not agriculture how the land loses its agricultural ability, every piece of land is productive, it may be ‘grains’ of any kind, or vegetables of any kind, so no land assumes non agricultural status by very nature; in such circumstances,how a govt can pronounce a land as ‘non agriculture’ is the question on the paradigm of ‘agriculture’; so by simply a govt declaring some piece of land how the land can be ‘Non agricultural’ need to be exclaimed by establishing that the land has become ‘barren’? only ‘barren lands’ may be Non agricultural, not otherwise; so any holder can any time make the land to produce a produce , the same word means in different positions mean differently, none can change the ‘ability of land’, it is only the user does; see if in a building if you could produce from the land some agricultural or horticultural activities and the like, the land itself is just ‘Agricultural’ ; no power other than Nature cannot change the productivity of the Land as such; so the sections in IT Act sec 2(14) is indeed irrelevant need to be struck down under doctrine of severability .
A govt for collecting any revenue it might prescribe some funny positions that funny positions obviously lack ‘any meaningful substance’ ; see sec 10(5) allows political parties can collect some unaccounted cash upto rs.20,000/- and the political party need not show the source of collection, s again misused by the political parties in blocks of rs less than rs.20,000, how that rs.20,000 cannot be laundered moneys; there is limit of fooling the people by political policies, one need to assert.
courts too accordingly evaluate in broader terms, under ‘judicial reviews’ is my take.