9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the land which was acquired was not capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act, he was unable to dispute that it was falling within the limits of the Municipality of Amritsar. In such a situation, it cannot be conclusively held that agricultural activities were being carried on the land and thus, the petitioner was entitled for the benefit under Section 10(37) of the Act. - it is not a fit case for grant of stay of recovery of entire demand. - stay granted equal to 50% of tax liability. - CWP No. 24902 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 26-3-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Anita Chaudhry,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Santharam, Advocate and Mr. Kanhiya Soni, Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 680/- on which TDS of Rs. 96,80,881/- was deducted as per provisions of Section 194LA of the Act. In the return, the assessee showed long term capital gain at Rs. 8,32,58,783/- on the amount of compensation received which was claimed as exempt under Section 10 (37) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the capital gains, as per provisions of Section 10(37) of the Act could be treated as exempted if the land acquired was being used for agricultural purposes during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer. The assessment order was passed vide order dated 30.3.2013 creating tax demand of Rs.1,28,36,480/-. The assessee-petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.4 against the assessment order on 8.4.2013. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax (Exemption) and others, (2013) 350 ITR 349 (Bom.). It was further argued that the petitioner was carrying on agricultural activities on the land which was acquired in respect of which he had received compensation and the said amount was thus exempt under Section 10(37) of the Act. It was urged that in such circumstances, demand of tax raised by the respondents was uncalled for and stay of demand ought to have been allowed by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents besides supporting the impugned order submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for benefit under the provisions of Section 10(37) of the Act. 7. The primary dispute in this case relates to w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being carried on the land and thus, the petitioner was entitled for the benefit under Section 10(37) of the Act. Moreover, it is a question of fact which is required to be determined on appreciation of material before the appellate authority. In such a situation, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of stay of recovery of entire demand. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to direct that there shall be interim stay of recovery of 50% of the tax liability during the pendency of the appeal, which is stated to be fixed for hearing on 9.4.2014. The judgments relied upon are based on individual fact situation involved therein. Moreover, it may be noticed that with regard to the grant of interim prayer, there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
