Practice Areas
Indirect Tax Cases
Direct Tax Cases
Intellectual Property
All Practice Areas
All Courts
Filter by Jurisdiction
All Courts
SC & All High Courts
All Tribunals
+ Income Tax Appellate Tribunal47138
+ Bombay High Court4098
+ Kerala High Court3264
+ Delhi High Court2343
+ Madras High Court2135
+ District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1585
+ Karnataka High Court1279
+ Himachal Pradesh High Court1247
+ Supreme Court Of India1097
+ Gujarat High Court1089
+ Calcutta High Court1051
+ Madhya Pradesh High Court1021
+ Allahabad High Court948
+ CESTAT752
+ Patna High Court734
+ Rajasthan High Court656
+ National Green Tribunal651
+ Punjab & Haryana High Court618
+ Gauhati High Court575
+ Andhra Pradesh High Court540
+ Telangana High Court536
+ State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission510
+ Central Information Commission499
+ National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission465
+ Jharkhand High Court449
+ Central Administrative Tribunal446
+ Orissa High Court313
+ Chhattisgarh High Court262
+ SEBI259
+ National Company Law Tribunal225
+ RERA220
+ Uttarakhand High Court209
+ Central Electricity Regulatory Commission182
+ Debts Recovery Tribunal150
+ Appellate Tribunal- Prevention Of Money Laundering Act106
+ Company Law Board95
+ Jammu and Kashmir High Court86
+ Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property75
+ National Company Law Appellate Tribunal63
+ Authority for Advance Rulings, GST62
+ Authority For Advance Rulings61
+ Securities Appellate Tribunal60
+ Appellate Tribunal For Electricity58
+ Meghalaya High Court49
+ Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange40
+ Competition Appellate Tribunal39
+ Tripura High Court33
+ National Anti-Profiteering Authority32
+ Sikkim High Court28
+ Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, GST26
+ Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Of India23
+ Telecom Disputes Settlement And Appellate Tribunal20
+ Manipur High Court18
+ Settlement Commission17
+ Intellectual Property Appellate Board15
+ Armed Forces Tribunal14
+ Competition Commission Of India13
+ Privy Council12
+ Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal10
+ Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission9
+ District Court7
+ Commissioner (Appeals)2
+ Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India2
+ Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property1
+ Board of Revenue1
+ Trade Marks Registry1
+ AAR-GST0
+ Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal0
+ Board For Industrial Financial Reconstruction0
+ Board of Revenue, Rajasthan0
+ Central Board of Excise & Customs0
+ Collector Appeals0
+ Consumer Disputes Redressal0
+ Copyright Board0
+ Cyber Appellate Tribunal0
+ Deputy Collector0
+ First Appellate Authority0
+ Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court0
+ Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory Board0
+ Railway Claims Tribunal0
+ Right to Information0
Apply Filter
Court Filter
+ RBI
+ SEBI
+ Andhra Pradesh
+ Arunachal Pradesh
+ Assam
+ Bihar
+ Chandigarh
+ Chhattisgarh
+ Delhi
+ Goa
+ Gujarat
+ Haryana
+ Himachal Pradesh
+ Jharkhand
+ Karnataka
+ Kerala
+ Madhya Pradesh
+ Maharashtra
+ Manipur
+ Meghalaya
+ Mizoram
+ Nagaland
+ Odisha
+ Punjab
+ Rajasthan
+ Sikkim
+ Tamil Nadu
+ Telangana
+ Tripura
+ Uttarakhand
+ Uttar Pradesh
+ West Bengal
+ Supreme Court Of India
+ Allahabad High Court
+ Andhra Pradesh High Court
+ Bombay High Court
+ Calcutta High Court
+ Chhattisgarh High Court
+ Delhi High Court
+ Gauhati High Court
+ Himachal Pradesh High Court
+ Jammu and Kashmir High Court
+ Jharkhand High Court
+ Karnataka High Court
+ Kerala High Court
+ Madhya Pradesh High Court
+ Madras High Court
+ Manipur High Court
+ Meghalaya High Court
+ Orissa High Court
+ Patna High Court
+ Punjab & Haryana High Court
+ Rajasthan High Court
+ Sikkim High Court
+ Telangana High Court
+ Tripura High Court
+ Uttarakhand High Court
Apply Filter
Apply Filter
Judge Filter
Filter by Judge (Beta)
Judge Name
Bench
Other Filters
To
2021 Onwards28096
From 2011 To 202037309
From 2001 To 20103563
From 1991 To 20002071
From 1981 To 19901701
From 1971 To 1980727
From 1961 To 1970339
From 1951 To 1960266
Before 1950144

Cases cited for the legal proposition you have searched for.

...Roy, [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC). The assessee also incidentally relied upon the..., [1957] 32 ITR 466, the activity carried out by the assessee was not an agricultural activity. On the basis of this law of the land laid down by the Supreme Co..., [1957] 32 ITR 466. It has been contended that the Supreme Court has, in very many details, discussed the concept of agriculture.”2. The Tribunal...

...ratio laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Bonoy Kumar Suhas Rai (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC) according to...order of Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Raja Binoy Kumar Suhas Rai 32 ITR 466 (SC), wherein, Honble Supreme Court has defined the agricultural activities. The conclusion...32 ITR 466 (SC) and ITAT in the case of Sudhisha Farm Nursery is appreciated and I am fully convince d that activities done by the appellant are in the nature of business activities which...

...had an occasion to express its view as to agricultural land in the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC). T...Kumar Sahas Roy's case [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), at pp. 507-508 of the report, observed that agriculture is the basic idea underlying the...of a municipality or town, etc. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Manilal Somnath [1977] 106 ITR 917, held...

...Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC).] Therefore, so far as the present case is concerned, it cannot be said that the issue was a debatable one...OnLine Mad 343, (1981) 130 ITR 385 (Mad), Andhra Pradesh High Court in Warner Hindustan Limited v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax.... 1987 SCC OnLine AP 473, (1988) 171 ITR 224, Kerala High Court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. CIT...

...Sahas Roy, [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), pointed out that the mere regeneration or preservation of trees could not be said to be expenditure of human skill and labour upon the land itself and operations...Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC). In our opinion, that decision has no bearing on the question to...) observed as to what the above earlier decision decided, in the following terms (page 136):“In Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy's case, [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC) the question before this court was...

...of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy reported in 32 ITR 466 (SC) would apply to the facts of the case...relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahasrai [1957] 32 ITR 466 (...ITR 466 (SC), are not to be found to have performed during this laboratory stage. It goes without saying that the process in the laboratory doesn't answers description of agriculture...

...of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy reported in 32 ITR 466 (SC) would apply to the facts of the case...relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahasrai [1957] 32 ITR 466 (...ITR 466 (SC), are not to be found to have performed during this laboratory stage. It goes without saying that the process in the laboratory doesn't answers description of agriculture...

...Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy reported in 32 ITR 466 (SC) would apply to the facts...[1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), further submitted that till generation of Plantlets from Suckers the basic operations i.e. tilling of the land...Sahasrai [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), are not to be found to have performed during this laboratory stage. It goes without...

...Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy reported in 32 ITR 466 (SC) would apply to the facts...[1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), further submitted that till generation of Plantlets from Suckers the basic operations i.e. tilling of the land...Sahasrai [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), are not to be found to have performed during this laboratory stage. It goes without...

...of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy reported in 32 ITR 466 (SC) would apply to the facts of the case...relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahasrai [1957] 32 ITR 466 (...ITR 466 (SC), are not to be found to have performed during this laboratory stage. It goes without saying that the process in the laboratory doesn't answers description of agriculture...

...Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy reported in 32 ITR 466 (SC) would apply to the facts...[1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), further submitted that till generation of Plantlets from Suckers the basic operations i.e. tilling of the land...Sahasrai [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), are not to be found to have performed during this laboratory stage. It goes without...

....-Tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, 1957 (32) ITR. 466 (SC.) and C.W.T v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards...). Paigah, (1976) 105 ITR. 133 (SC), and by us in Kalpaka Oil Mills (In..., Ernakulam., (1966) 59 ITR. 145, this Court found that 34 trees in a total area of 57 cents on the M.G Road, Ernakulam did not make the property an agricultural property. The density of trees in that...

..., [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), urged that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the legal position and the income derived by the assessee was agricultural...Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy's case, [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC). The Supreme Court defined the scope of the term “agriculture” in the following...] 32 ITR 466 (SC) has held that integrated activity which constitutes agricultural is undertaken and performed in regard to any land that land can be said to have been used for agricultural purposes...

...out in this case. Further parameters set by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy reported in 32 ITR 466 (SC) were not fulfilled in this case...

.... Further parameters set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy reported in 32 ITR 466 (SC) were not fulfilled in this case;2. The order of...

...Sahas Roy, [1957] 32 ITR 466 which was heard and decided along with two other appeals in Kames...CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, [1957] 32 ..., [1957] 32 ITR 466.3. However, the assessing authority did not accept the appellant's plea, and hence held that the assessee's income was not ...

...“income” and the “land” is that the shooting of the films is done on the agricultural land. In Raja Benoy Kumar's case, [1957] 32 ITR 466(SC), even...the propositions laid down in the aforementioned two judgments, viz., Raja Benoy Kumar's case, [1957] 32 ITR 466(SC) and V.G.P Housing (P...Roy, [1957] 32 ITR 466. In the said decision, the Supreme Court was considering the definition of the term “agricultural income” as it was found in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922...

...Court, after referring to the decision in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy's case, [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC), observed that the question...in the case of CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, [1957] 32 ITR 466, where it was held that agriculture in its primary sense meant the...observations of the Supreme Court at page 505 of the report ([1957] 32 ITR 466), which were as follows:“In order that an income derived by the assessee should fall within the definition...

...Jyotikana vs CIT [26 ITR 424]; o Benoykumar vs CIT [24 ITR 70] affirmed CIT vs Benoykumar [32 ITR 466 (SC)] In this regard, looking at t...vs. CIT reported in 26 ITR 424 Benoykumar vs. CIT reported in 24 ITR 70 which has been affirmed by Honble Supreme Court reported in 32 ITR 466 3. Ld.... Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that issue stands squarely covered by decision of Honble Delhi High Court in the case of DDIT versus Ericsson AB reported in 343 ITR 370. He...

...CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC) and...Board of Agricultural Income Tax v. Sindhurani Chaudhurani [1957] 32 ITR 169 (SC); and6 ...):1 A.R Krishnamurthy v. CIT [1989] 176 ITR 417 (SC);2 R.K Palshikar (HUF) v. CIT [1988...