9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The land continues to be a mango orchard there is no sign of any development activity. ITAT has held that the land in question is situated beyond the prescribed limits of Mysore City - Thus, the Remand Report by the Assessing Officer clearly shows that the land continued to be a 'Mango Orchard' and there was no sign of any development. Agricultural land is excluded from the definition of Capital Asset u/s 2(14)(iii) and land situated beyond 8 kms. is exempted from the definition of Capital Asset. Thus, there is a finding of fact by the ITAT that the land is situated beyond the prescribed limit. This Court, after considering the law on the point in various authorities, has held in M.R.Anandaram(HUF) supra that the actual co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and circumstances of the case? 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in reversing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by allowing the appeal filed by the revenue in respect of direction to the learned Assessing Officer to allow the claim of section 54F of the Act after satisfying the conditions as per law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not adjudicating the ground of the appellant as to cost of acquisition of silver oak trees as on 01.04.1981 at 10% of the sale price as against the 20% claimed by the appellant under the facts and in circumstances of the appellant's case and similarly have not adjudicated the ground in respect of inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e records, the land was converted for Industrial purpose. The CIT(A) has confirmed the said finding and admitted assessee's claim under Section 54F of the Act; and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the same after satisfying the condition as per law. 6. He further submitted that the ITAT has not only dismissed assessee's claim that the land is agricultural land, but also denied the benefit available under Section 54F of the Act, by allowing Revenue's appeal. Thus, the impugned order is unsustainable on both counts. 7. Amplifying his contention, Shri. Shankar argued that this Court in CIT(A) and another Vs. M.R. Anandaram ITA No.176/2015 and connected cases decided on 22.07.2022 (para 21), after consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l land is excluded from the definition of Capital Asset under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and land situated beyond 8 kms. is exempted from the definition of Capital Asset. Thus, there is a finding of fact by the ITAT that the land is situated beyond the prescribed limit. This Court, after considering the law on the point in various authorities, has held in M.R.Anandaram(HUF) supra that the actual condition and the intended view is a sina qua non while deciding whether a land in question is an agricultural land or not. 14. In view of the Remand Report and the finding of fact recorded by the ITAT, the first question of law merits consideration and it is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 15. In view of our ans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
