9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law for our consideration: " Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in treating the income received of Rs. 69 crores assessable on sale of Nonagricultural land as Long Term Capital Gain instead of Business income ignoring the business aspirations of the assessee?" 3 The Respondent is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of building construction and land developers. In its return of income for subject Assessment Year, the Respondent declared its total income of Rs. 62.85 Crores. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Respondent had shown an amount of Rs. 62.34 Crores as long term capital gains on account of sale of plot admeasuring 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue in the earlier Assessment Orders passed under Section 143(3) of the Act; (iv) The Statement of purchasers of the land that the land purchased was agricultural land and they had obtained necessary permission to make it nonagricultural; (v) The 2.10 lakhs sq. mtrs. of land was valued at cost year after year and not at cost or market price whichever is lower as applicable as stockintrade. Therefore, on the aforesaid finding of fact, it allowed appeal of the Respondent. 5 The Revenue being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The impugned order dated 16th December, 2015 of the Tribunal confirmed the fact that, land was purchased in 1986 and since 2000, the land has shown in its books of account a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 stockintrade. 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. 8 The impugned order dated 16th December, 2015 of the Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact, which is not shown to be perverse in any manner. Therefore, the proposed question does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 9 Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No order as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
