9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ricultural to non agricultural use in the year 2005 and thereafter obtained necessary development permission from the AUDA (competent authority) for construction of the showroom etc. Thereafter the dispute arose between the assessee and Mercedes Benz and therefore, the dealership with the Mercedes Benz came to be discontinued in the year 2009. That thereafter, in the year 2011, the assessee sold the land and received the sale consideration which was claimed by it as a capital gain. Considering above it cannot be said that when the assessee purchased the land in the year 2003, the intention was to purchase the land to make profit by selling it. The aforesaid circumstances would suggest that the land was purchased for showroom etc. As such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee who at the relevant time was having a dealership agreement with Mercedes Benz filed the return of income for AY 201213. The assessee company sold the property which was shown in the block assets for the amount of ₹ 25,22,52,000/. The assessee shown long term capital gain of ₹ 22,78,,50,090/on sale of such land after applying cost indexation and claiming improvement cost of ₹ 47,47,534/. That the AO did not accept the claim of the assessee, more particularly, claim of the assessee to treat ₹ 24,13,24,783/as capital gain on sale of the land and as the AO was of the opinion that when the assessee purchased the land, the intention was to get profit on sale and the transaction had all the elements of business tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that therefore, when the land was converted from agricultural to non agricultural land and thereafter the assessee submitted the plans for showroom as well as office (as observed by the learned CIT(A)) and thereafter the assessee sold the said land by plotting the same, the intention of the assessee was very clear to get profit on sale of the said land. It is submitted that the learned CIT(A), therefore, giving cogent reasons rightly confirmed the order passed by the AO treating the amount of ₹ 24,13,24,783/received by the assessee on sale of the land as income from the business, the same was not required to be interfered with by the learned Tribunal. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit / allow the present Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
