9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the light of the judgment of the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Anjana Sehgal in ITA No. 276 of 2004-since reported in [2013] 355 ITR 294 (P & H), according to which, the land sold was urban land situated in specified area of any municipality. (ii) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the distance is to be measured from the municipality limits of Pathankot town only and not from the municipal limits of Sujanpur town ?" Another appeal beari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pathankot are relevant to determine whether the land is capital asset or not. It was found that the land is not within 8 kms of the Municipal Council Pathankot, thus the land is not an capital asset. Such order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was affirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") on May 10, 2012. It is the said order which is dispute in the present appeals by the Revenue. Learned counsel for the Revenue relies upon an order passed by the Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Smt. Anjana Sehgal ITA No. 276 of 2004, decided on March 1, 2011-since reported in [2013] 355 ITR 294 wherein it has been held that the land situated within the limits of 8 kms from any municipality would be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (supra), the questions of law, framed in ITA Nos. 209 and 190 of 2012 are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee as the land is situated within the municipal limits of Municipal Council, Sujanpur. As a consequence thereof, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated July 14, 2011, and learned Tribunal dated May 10, 2012, are set aside and that of the Assessing Officer is restored. In ITA No. 208 of 2012, the order impugned is order setting aside penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It has been found that the land sold by the assessee is a capital asset liable to capital gains. Thus, the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Since the appeal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
