9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T] had categorically held merely because the sale price was fixed through a negotiated settlement, the character of acquisition would still remain compulsory. In the instant case, the entire procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act was followed, only price was fixed upon a negotiated settlement. The A.O. did not have case that the impugned land is not an agricultural land. Therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court (supra), we hold that the acquisition of the urban agricultural land was a compulsory acquisition and the same would be entitled to the benefit enumerated in section 10(37) of the I.T.Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 568/Coch/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2019 - Shri Chandr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, vide order dated 25.02.2016, wherein the A.O. had worked out the long term capital gains at ₹ 1,40,05,853. It was held by the A.O. that the land transferred falls within the limit of Trivandrum Municipal Corporation and the assessee s claim for exemption u/s 10(37) of the I.T.Act was not admissible for the reason that it was not a compulsory acquisition, but a sale through negotiated settlement. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A), by following the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India [(2017) 391 ITR 178 (SC)], held that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compulsory acquisition by Government of Kerala for developing Vizhinjam International Seaport. Though the acquisition proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act, the final price was fixed upon negotiated sale agreement. The only reason for the A.O. to deny the benefit of section 10(37) was that the impugned land was acquired by executing a sale deed in favour of Vizhinjam International Seaport and it was not a case of compulsory acquisition. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India Others (supra) had categorically held merely because the sale price was fixed through a negotiated settlement, the character of acquisition would still remain compulsory. The relevant finding of the Hon ble Apex Court re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
