2014 (3) TMI 951

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ls for computing the capital gains under the Income-tax Act, there cannot be any levy of capital gains tax. However, in this case, the assessee is not challenging the estimation of capital gains at 30 per cent. of the sale proceeds. The assessee s claim is that the entire income is agricultural income. This claim of the assessee as agricultural income cannot be correct in view of the judgments of the apex court referred in [1981 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court]. Since the assessee is not challenging the treatment of 30 per cent. of the sale proceeds as capital gain, the Revenue may not have any grievance in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). - Appeal of Revenue has no merit - Decided against Revenue.
Shri N.R.S. Ganesan and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er cent. of the sale proceeds of mahogany trees as income from capital gain. By following the abovesaid precedent the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) found that in this case also the Assessing Officer shall treat 30 percent of the sale proceeds of mahogany trees as capital gain. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed the appeal. The only contention of the Revenue is that the Assessing Officer rejected the claim for expenses on the ground that there is no evidence for incurring the expenditure. The learned Departmental representative further submitted that the mahogany trees were cut along with roots, therefore, the entire proceeds should be taken as capital gain. In the cross-ob .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he assessee is not challenging the estimation of capital gains at 30 per cent. of the sale proceeds. The assessee's claim is that the entire income is agricultural income. This claim of the assessee as agricultural income cannot be correct in view of the judgments of the apex court referred to above. Since the assessee is not challenging the treatment of 30 per cent. of the sale proceeds as capital gain, the Revenue may not have any grievance in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue has no merit at all. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on this 14th March, 2014.
Case laws, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X