9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was deputed by the AO to verify the correctness of the Respondent's claim that the 2.10 lakhs sq. mtr of land was being held as an investment as no construction activity was carried out on the same. The submission made on behalf of the Appellant completely ignores the fact that, it is always open to an assessee to hold the same class of assets as investment and also as stock-in-trade. There is no bar in law for a person dealing in land to also have investment in land. Thus, there is no substance in the above submission. - Decide against revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No.1720 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2019 - Akil Kureshi And M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kotangle with Mr. Prabhakar Rans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he remaining portion of the property admeasuring 2.10 lakhs sq. mtrs had been sold by the Respondent in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year for a total consideration of ₹ 69 Crores and after deducting the expenditure, the Respondent had offered long term capital gains on the sale of land at ₹ 62.34 Crores. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that as the business of the RespondentAssessee was construction, the 2.10 lakhs sq. mtrs. should be treated as its stockintrade and the income/gain arising on the same should be taxed under the head 'income from business' and not as capital gain in its Assessment Order dated 30th December, 2011. 4 Being aggrieved with the order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Inspector was deputed by the Assessing Officer to verify the correctness of the status of the land i.e. an investment or not. On inspection, the Inspector reported that no construction was carried out on 2.10 lakhs sq. mtrs. of land which was held as an investment. On the above facts, the Tribunal upheld the finding of fact by the CIT(A) to hold that 2.10 lakhs sq. mtrs of the land is an investment. In the above view, the impugned order dated 16th December, 2015 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. 6 Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel in support of the appeal submits that, as the business of the Respondent is of construction, the purpose and object of holding land could only be for business purposes and not as investment. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
