2012 (3) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion of Rs. 50 lakhs, is not a transaction involving transfer of a capital asset and, therefore, no need to bring the income referable to the capital gains part of the transfer of the asset.
SHYLENDRA KUMAR D. V., KEMPANNA H. S., JJ. JUDGMENT D. V. Shylendra Kumar J.- 1. The appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") by the Revenue, seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law for our examination in this appeal : "1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the land which is the subject-matter of sale is agricultural land as on the date of sale without taking into consideration the conversion of land to non-agricultural purpose and consequently recorded a per- ve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d been sold recited that it is a converted land, converted for non-agricultural use, and as per the per- mission granted by the competent authority, viz., the Assistant Commis- sioner in the Revenue sub-division concerned. It is, therefore, submitted that the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal should not have ventured to extend the relief to the assessee even against the assessee's own document, viz., sale deed, etc. 3. It is also sought to be submitted that even independent of the question as to whether the land had been converted for a non-agricultural purpose or had retained its agricultural character, but as it was within a distance of 8 kms. from the urban agglomeration of Bangalore city it is inevitably a capital asset within t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the sale transaction dated June 2, 2004, it was taken as a sale of capital asset, as this sale was after the date of permission for non-agri- cultural use granted by the Assistant Commissioner, viz., after May 10, 2004, whereas the earlier sale transaction dated April 7, 2004, is held to be in respect of an agricultural land. We do not find the reasoning and the principle enunciated by the Tribunal for making a distinction as to whether the land was agricultural land or otherwise in the case of T. Suresh Gowda (supra) apply to the present case to be obnoxious or violating any statutory provisions and, therefore, we do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal. 8. Irrespective of the fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X