9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to consider only those investments for computing average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year under consideration as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) in view of the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd.[ 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] and the disallowance shall be recomputed. Thus, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. Addition to income from capital gains - Nature of land sold - Whether land was agricultural land? - As per AO assessee has not filed the sale deed from which the relevant survey can be ascertained. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has held that the land is situated beyond the distance of 5 kms from Kancheepuram is also not verifiable in the absence of sale deed of the property, on the basis of which these claims can be verified - HELD THAT:- What prevented the assessee in filing the sale deed either before the authorities below or before the Tribunal has not been explained. Moreover, the assessee has placed on record sample documents in the form of Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to Neervallur village property, whereas, as per the said schedule of immovable properties, this property disappears. Anyhow, to meet the ends of natural justice, we d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. During the year under consideration, the assessee has received dividend income for a sum of ₹.76,08,695/- out of investment made. The Assessing Officer noted from the balance sheet that the assessee had investments of ₹.86,34,99,915/- as on 31.03.2012 and investment of ₹.69,99,99,940/- as on 31.03.2011 and during the year, there was an investment of ₹.19,34,99,975/-. However, the assessee has not admitted any expenditure. Accordingly, by invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer determined the expenditure at ₹.39,08,750/- in relation to earning exempt income. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that the entire investments yielding exempt income were in group companies. Citing the reason of commercial expediency, the assessee submitted that the object of making such investment was not to earn exempt income. By following the decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. [(2018) 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)], the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they had furnished the details of land tax paid as per the records of the State Revenue. The appellant also stated that they had furnished the Encumbrance Certificate for the said land which showed that the land was agricultural land. The appellant also submitted that they had been offering agricultural income in the return. As regards the definition of Capital Asset under section 2(14), the appellant submitted that the land was beyond the distance of 5 kms from Kancheepuram and total population to the village was only 671. It was submitted that the impugned land did not fall within the definition of capital asset. 10. The appellant's contentions are considered. The Assessing Officer has stated that no evidence was furnished to show that the land was agricultural or agricultural activities were carried on the land. However according to the appellant, all the evidences were already on the record. It is observed from the appellant's submission that while the appellant was sold 18.63 acres during the year, the appellant had placed on record only sample documents in the form of Encumbrance Certificate and downloads from State Revenue Authority in connection with Prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not filed the sale deed from which the relevant survey can be ascertained. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has held that the land is situated beyond the distance of 5 kms from Kancheepuram is also not verifiable in the absence of sale deed of the property, on the basis of which these claims can be verified. Therefore, following the decision in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT (supra), wherein, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that whenever the intention of the sale was not to use it for agricultural purpose but exploit it commercially, the benefit of the agricultural land cannot be allowed, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the assessee. 6.4 Before us, in support of the claim of the assessee, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed schedule of immovable properties containing the details of document number, area, survey number, village/taluk/district/SRO and boundary, located at Thottipalayam village of Tirupur, Karapakkam village Sholinganallur village of Tambaram Taluk, Madukarai village of Coimbatore South Taluk, Kavundanpalayam village of Coimbatore North taluk, Neelambur village of Sulur Taluk, Senneerkuppam village of Poonamallee Taluk, Sanganoo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
