9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (b) and (a) of clause (iii) of sub-section (14) to section 2 of the Income Tax Act, when the said land was in fact within 2.5 Km of Rajarhat Municipality . 2. In this case, during the F.Y. 2006-07 the appellant sold certain plots of lands situated in Village - Kalaberia, P.S. , P.O. Rajarhat, District 24-Parganas (North) for a consideration of ₹ 78,30,733/-. The land in question was inherited by the appellant from his forefathers. In the Return of Income filed for A.Y. 2007-08 no capital gains realized on sale of land was disclosed. on the plea that the lands in question were agricultural in nature and therefore did not fall within the definition of capital asset as per the provisions of Section 2(14) of the I.T. Act. It was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l land situation in rural areas, outside the Municipality or cantonment board etc, having a population of not less than 10,000 and also beyond the distance notified by Central Government from local limits, i.e. the outer limits of any such municipality or cantonment board etc. still continues to be excluded from the definition of capital asset . Accordingly, ln view of sub-clause (b) of section 2(14) (iii) of the Act even under the amended definition of expression capital asset , the agricultural land situated in the rural areas continues to be excluded from that definition. And as in the present case, admittedly, the agricultural land of the assessee is out side the Municipal limits of Rajarhat Municipality and that also 2.5 KM away from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal before us. 5. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. He referred to the Tribunal s decision in the case of co-owner of the property Shri Arijit Mitra as above and contended that in view of the aforesaid Tribunal decision, no capital gain was exigible in the assessee s hands. 6. Ld. D.R. could not contradict to this submission of the ld. Counsel of assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal in the hands of the co-owner of the property had held that the lands in quest ion did not constitute capital asset under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
