9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... town of Puri would be exempt as income from agriculture ? " The background facts as indicated in the statement of case are as follows: For the assessment year 1982-83, Gouri Shankar Agarwalla (hereinafter referred to as " the assessee " ) filed his return of income in the status of an individual. The net income was indicated to be Rs. 10,210. Though the assessee had filed a return showing his income to be below the taxable limit, from the documents filed, the Income-tax Officer was of the view that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the assessment year in question. Therefore, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. It was observed by the Income-tax Officer that 9.65 acres of land belonging to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer found that the gross compensation received was Rs. 7,86,888. The cost of land including the cost of registration subsequent development and expenditure incurred for the transfer were calculated at Rs. 1,60,972. The assessee had purchased a plot of land for Rs. 85,000 for being used for agricultural purposes within two years of the transfer, vide sale deed dated November 5, 1983, and was, therefore, held entitled to deduction of Rs. 85,000. The assessee's stand that he had purchased specified assets to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000 which was more than Rs. 5,40,000 arrived at after deduction of the cost of land and purchase of the plot and, therefore, the resultant capital gain chargeable to tax was nil, did not find acceptance with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vious year or ; (b) in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a) as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanisation of that area and other relevant considerations, specified in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette. It was observed that there was no dispute that the land was agricultural land. The land was not situated within the municipal Limits of Puri town and, therefore, the condition laid down in sub-clause (iii)(a) of clause (14) of section 2 was not applicable. The further question was whether sub-clause (b) of clause (iii) of the above section had application. In order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... town of Puri would be exempt as being income from agriculture. Such question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Similar is the second question. The Tribunal has not observed that the land subject to capital gains was agricultural land within the meaning of section 2(1A) of the Act. In order to bring out the true essence of the dispute, we reframe the question as follows " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no capital gains tax was leviable on the consideration received for acquisition of the assessee's land ?" On a reference to the notification issued by the Government of India, it is clear that the name of Puri town in the State of Orissa has not been no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
