9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or more than five decades has ever been converted into stock-in-trade. Thus unable to accept the contention of the Revenue. Further in the absence of any evidence to the contrary to prove that the 'MOU' in question is not proved as an instance of adventurous trading, CIT (A) has rightly treated income from the transaction in question under the head 'capital gains' instead of 'business' income as done by the AO. In favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.1880/Mds/2012 - - - Dated:- 11-6-2013 - Dr. O. K. Narayanan And Shri S. S. Godara,JJ. For the Appellant : Dr. S. Moharana, CIT For the Respondent : Shri. T. Srinivasan, CA ORDER Per S. S. Godara, Judicial Member. This Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2007-2008, arises from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d MOU. In response thereof, the assessee filed its 'return' on 30.12.2009 and declared taxable income of Rs. 1,12,11,366/- under the head 'capital gains'. It also had other receipts from 'house property' and 'interest income'. The assessee's return was 'summarily' processed. 4. In the course of 'scrutiny', the Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee receipt of Rs. 2 crores (supra) was liable to be treated as 'business' income. He referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for ascertaining its fair market value. In explanation, the assessee pleaded before the Assessing Officer that it had retained the property for more than five decades and thereafter only, the joint venture agreement in question had been executed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness Income assessed by A.O. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) failed to consider that as per Directors report it has been mentioned that the Directors were keen in developing the land purchased at ECR which had immense hope for development of Holiday Resorts and Amusement park. 2.2. It is submitted that the Directors report dated 31.3.2005 it was stated that the company decided to develop farm house site partly and develop approved site for Tourism activity in the company's vacant land and put for sale which would wipe up off accumulated loss and bringing substantial profit to continue the main project i.e its real estate activity. In the facts of the present case the AOs decision was not based on the assertion that purchase of the said land w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n five decades. There is no material filed by the Revenue to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessee is yet to part with its possession and consideration has not been received as on 31.03.2007. In principle, the contention of the Revenue is that the 'MOU' (supra) gives rise to 'business income' instead of 'capital gains' as claimed by the assessee. In this background, we are of the view that the present case involves a single transaction in question. There is no evidence or any cogent material produced before us which could prove that the property in question held by the assessee for more than five decades has ever been converted into stock-in-trade. In this view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contention of the Revenue. Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
